Congress hijacks 'environmental justice' to help the wealthy, not the poor
By: Mario H. Lopez (TheHill)
Increasing the cost of whatever consumers buy is simply a tax on consumers. Tax credits for electric vehicles disproportionately favor the affluent at the top of the income scale. However, the cost of building the infrastructure to support those shiny toys disproportionately burden the much less affluent.
The less affluent pay more for everything while the rich get the tax cuts and credits. That's neo-liberal justice. And it has nothing to do with the environment.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
A key part of President Biden agenda will be an attempt to reshape American energy policy. While Biden's grand ambitions to tackle climate issues include lofty concepts such as "environmental justice" — a term that supposedly indicates equitable benefits for underserved communities — it is clear that some portions of his plan will do just the opposite: hurt average working families through more regulations and higher energy costs.
A prime example is legislation in Congress, the Climate Leadership and Environmental Action for our Nation's (CLEAN) Future Act, which would require states to "consider authorizing measures encouraging deployment of electric vehicle charging stations [and] allowing utilities to recover from ratepayers investments that further deployment of electric vehicle charging networks."
Proponents claim the proposal is about protecting the interests of historically overburdened communities on the front line. But the reality will be passing along the cost of electric vehicle (EV) charging stations to utility customers in these communities. Those costs would be a regressive tax that disproportionately burdens working-class Americans — and benefits those who have the means to purchase electric cars.
Whether or not electric vehicles fulfill a need or are a key component of transportation infrastructure is beside the point. In legislation such as the CLEAN Future Act, the concept of "environmental justice" has been hijacked to help those who need it least. It will force poor people in underserved communities to pay for the EV infrastructure that wealthier Americans want for themselves.
This is hardly an exaggeration. Studies underscore the extent to which high-end electric vehicles are found in the garages of the wealthiest among us. The Congressional Research Service found that "[electric vehicle] tax credits are disproportionately claimed by higher-income taxpayers. Most of the tax credits (78 percent) are claimed by filers with adjusted gross income (AGI) of $100,000 or more, and those filers receive an even higher proportion (83 percent) of the amount of credits claimed."
Similarly, in 2015, the Energy Institute at Haas concluded that "the top income quintile has received about 90 percent of all credits." And more recently, Pacific Research Institute analysis showed that "79 percent of electric vehicle plug-in tax credits were claimed by households with adjusted gross incomes of greater than $100,000 per year."
In contrast, average Americans foot the bill for electric vehicles through taxpayer subsidies, contributing $7,500 for every EV sold until each manufacturer hits a 200,000-unit threshold. The bipartisan Joint Committee on Taxation estimates that the credit in its current form will cost taxpayers $7.5 billion just between fiscal years 2018 and 2022.
The American Energy Alliance walks through how the regulations under this legislation would hurt consumers: "If passed, the CLEAN Future Act would allow utilities to rate-base the construction of electric vehicle charging stations, meaning that the cost of these charging stations will be passed on to utility customers as a whole."
The people most directly harmed by the higher utility rates created by the CLEAN Future Act won't be found driving Teslas — instead they will be wondering how to keep their lights on in the aftermath of one of the worst economic crises in living memory. Lower income consumers, of course, are disproportionately affected by increases in energy prices.
As lawmakers consider the electric vehicle charging infrastructure provision, they should consider its costly consequences for their lower-income and middle-class constituents. If codified into law, the CLEAN Future Act's transfer of wealth from poorer ratepayers to wealthier electric vehicle owners would amount to a "reverse Robin Hood" effect.
Wherever one stands on how to handle climate, infrastructure issues, or electric vehicles themselves, it should be common sense that hard-working Americans whose economic prospects have been hurt by the depths of the coronavirus pandemic should not be made to pay higher utility bills so that richer Americans can recharge their luxury electric cars in a more convenient location.
Mario H. Lopez is the president of the Hispanic Leadership Fund, a public policy advocacy organization that promotes liberty, opportunity, and prosperity for all Americans. Follow him on Twitter @MarioHLopez.
Tags
Who is online
99 visitors
When do we finally acknowledge that these grand climate schemes are a hoax intended to transfer the meager wealth of the less affluent to the rich.
We can't claim to be rebuilding the middle class by forcing them to subsidize the rich. So, the obvious thing to do is to claim that the top income levels are the middle class. Just ignore that moving the goalposts means the bottom 80 pct are poor.
Are you against the move towards clean, renewable energy?
No.
Keep in mind we had clean energy available in the 1930s and an alternative clean energy source in the 1950s and 1960s. Our over consumption outpaced those clean energy sources. We demanded more than those clean energy sources could supply.
We also had a nation wide system of mass transit at the beginning of the 20th century. In urban areas much of that mass transit was powered by electricity, too.
There were electric cars with public charging stations in 1902; before gasoline became widely available. And the government didn't build the infrastructure that supplied gasoline to replace electric cars.
We aren't paying attention to the lessons from our own past. I am against blindly rushing forward to score political points while repeating the same mistakes.
The time has come for viable electric vehicles to replace the internal combustion engine. Prior to this the technology simply was not there (in particular, battery technology). I am thus in favor of taking moves to broaden the infrastructure to encourage the electric vehicle market and the gradual weaning from vehicles requiring fossil fuels.
Or the time has come to return to improving electric cars that were available in 1902. The plan is to rebuild the infrastructure that was destroyed.
We air freight fresh tulips from Brussels to Chicago. We air freight fresh crab from Anchorage to New York. We air freight fresh lobster from Boston to Los Angeles. We air freight fresh oysters and shrimp from New Orleans to cities across the United States. These are daily shipments by air freight.
Why? Just because we can doesn't seem like a valid reason.
The electric cars of the past (from the early 19th century through the late 20th century) were not viable. The (excellent) idea was before its time; as I mentioned in my prior comment.
Why what? Are you asking why move to clean renewables? The obvious answer is that if we can use energy that does not pollute and is economically viable then we should pursue it.
That's the attitude that forces us to repeat the same mistakes. We're too busy wasting time and effort trying to score political points than engage in rational discussion.
Go watch pro sports; one of the most nonessential energy wasters in our society. Plant a tree a feel good about burning fossil fuels for no good reason.
If clean renewables are the answer then why did the the government move the country away from clean renewables? Why did the government encourage all of us to over consume fossil fuels for nonessential activities?
WTF are you talking about? My comment had nothing to do with politics. And there is no attitude. I made a rational argument.
Apparently you are against clean renewables. That does not surprise me given your anti-science/technology comment history.
I thought the goal was to reduce carbon emissions. Are you denying the science claiming that the need to reduce carbon emissions is urgent?
Salesmen for gee whiz techno widgets are more interested in making the sale than reducing carbon emissions. Grid scale solar and wind renewable energy has been planned by salesmen. The grid helps the rich become richer because they are subsidized by the poor. That's the point being made in the seeded article.
The clean renewables argument you are making isn't about the environment. You are only arguing that the poor must pay more to subsidize the rich. Who cares about carbon emissions when the whole effort is all about selling more cars?
Where do you get this bullshit from anything TiG has said, Nerm?
Or this bullshit?
What does that have to do with your assertion of politics and attitude? My comment was that renewable, clean energy is good for the environment and should be pursued where viable.
You get that, right? Stop attempting to twist my words.
Yes it is. Don't tell me what I am talking about.
How obnoxious. Troll someone else.
Bullshit indeed.
The same place TiG got his bullshit. I listed examples of daily shipments by air freight and asked why. TiG chose to play the bullshit card. So, we are playing a game of bullshit.
TiG has a track record of inability to discuss topics without moving goalposts and making strawman arguments.
Where exactly did I state anything that was bullshit? Deliver a quote. Here, I will make it easy for you; identify the 'bullshit':
What a load of absolutely perfect projection. You are trolling in your own seed.
You're the one that moved the goalposts and made a strawman argument. I made no statement that could be inferred as opposition to pursuing alternative energy. You chose to ignore the context of the discussion and twist the discussion into a strawman claim.
My argument is that we are pursuing alternative energy for unsupportable reasons. We are consuming far too much energy for nonessential purposes. The point of installing EV charging stations really is about selling electric vehicles while continuing over consumption of energy for nonessential purposes.. Everyone will pay higher electric rates so that Elon Musk can sell more cars when so few people can afford to buy a Tesla. Elon Musk certainly won't become poorer by selling more cars.
I'm the seeder. I'm not trolling my own seed.
Your response in @ 1.1.4 was:
"Why what? Are you asking why move to clean renewables? The obvious answer is that if we can use energy that does not pollute and is economically viable then we should pursue it."
Where did that bullshit come from? My question 'why?' in @ 1.1.3 concerned current activities that burn fossil fuels. The apparent obvious attempt with your strawman argument is to avoid discussing why we waste so much energy on nonessential activities. You aren't that dense or obtuse.
Where? Show me! Deliver the quote.
Look at what you have done. I contribute to this seed with topical comments that are pro on viable renewable energy and you characterize my comments as based on an attitude and a political agenda. Then you pile on with more invented bullshit.
That, Nerm, is trolling your own damn seed.
You asked 'why' and I asked you what you were asking about:
My next question was my best guess at what you were asking about. I then went ahead and answered assuming that was your question:
Get it? I was trying to answer your vague 'why?' question. And you call that bullshit.
And now you deem that to be a strawman? ... and now deflection?
Get a grip.
And there's the bullshit again. You aren't that dense or obtuse.
Bullshit. You were attempting to change the whole contest of my comment.
Yes, you made a strawman argument by falsely attributing a claim I never made or inferred to me. Now you are gaslighting.
The topic of the seeded article is how government programs, like installation of charging stations, harm the less affluent and benefits the rich.
I broke this down for you into elementary details and you still pretend that you cannot comprehend that your unqualified 'why?' was a vague question that I nonetheless attempted to answer. Here is what happened:
For you to call that bullshit, strawman, deflection, etc. is trolling. For you to continue this pointless aggression after I have clearly explained (what should not even need explanation in the first place) is trolling. You are on the attack with allegations from your imagination. Making accusations when all I did was attempt to answer your vague question.
I did not falsely attribute anything to you by simply trying to answer your damn question. This is all invented by you and, worse, you continue to stubbornly make this ridiculous accusation in spite of having this explained in detail.
Maybe you misunderstood my comment (although I have no idea how one could). But given I have explained this in detail there is no excuse. You are trolling. Plain and obvious.
The move to renewable energy focuses on allowing normal activities to still occur but with less impact on the environment. My endorsement of the move to electric vehicles has nothing to do with some tree-hugging ideology or a partisan movement. It is simply a step in the right direction. Cutting lead out of gasoline was a step in the right direction. Recycling is a step in the right direction. Lots of examples of incremental changes that positively contribute to a beneficial objective.
In short, I have not even remotely hinted that I favor the immediate cessation of all the wasteful and/or gratuitous practices of life. I am more focused on macro changes such as conversion to electric vehicles and do not even consider relatively minor factors such as air freight shipments of fresh lobster.
I stated that I am in favor of electric cars and I gave you my reasons. The fact that we are wasteful in other areas is irrelevant. One step at a time. I was talking about electric cars. And I will continue to be in favor of electric cars even while billionaires gratuitously travel all over the planet in their private jets. Don't use my pro-electric car comment to portray me as some wide-eyed environmental activist who seeks to cease all that is 'bad'.
Basically, it is a good practice to not read a whole lot of crap into a member's comments. I suggest you ask rather than presume.
I definitely agree. I don't see why we can't eliminate the "waste" first.
TiG, I completely understood what that "why" referred to; why can't we eliminate the nonessential burning of fossil fuels first?
My point was that incremental improvement doesn't address the urgency being cited as justification. A crisis situation requires curtailing nonessential activities, just as happened with the pandemic.
As you point out, the effort being deployed is about using government to subsidize technological replacements for fossil fuels without curtailing the waste of energy on nonessential activities. The less affluent will receive an immediate burden of higher prices while the more affluent are allowed to continue their wasteful and gratuitous activities. That's why the seeded article characterizes environmental justice as a political means to force the less affluent to subsidize the nonessential activities of the more affluent.
Environmental justice isn't about reducing carbon emissions; environmental justice is about politicians selling technology. Those selling the technology certainly won't become poorer by selling more. And those being forced to subsidize the technology won't become richer.
Shared sacrifice would require the more affluent to cease engaging in activities that require gross over consumption of energy for wasteful and gratuitous purposes. We've had clean alternative energy available for a century but our consumption of energy overwhelmed the capacity of those clean sources. We are repeating the mistakes of the past.
Electric vehicles won't accomplish much if we continue to increase our waste of energy.
Then why did you do that? You apparently understood the point of my comment. Instead you chose to make strawman assertions and allegations by removing my context and creating your own context. You attempted to justify your own context with gaslighting. And you made the false allegation that the portion you selected out of context was unqualified.
Well, I don't know about eliminating nonessential uses of energy first. But energy waste must be included in the discussions.
Little if any attention is being given to how and why we are consuming energy. The focus of climate change activism and politics has been on selling more stuff. That approach will only make the rich richer while forcing the less affluent to subsidize the profligate lifestyles of the more affluent.
The current state of climate policy and legislation will only accelerate the transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich.
First? In other words, is he suggesting we address all the ancillary uses of fossil fuels BEFORE we embrace electric vehicles?
Fossil fuel usage by cars is a major factor of pollution. The moving to clean renewables is by definition moving away from fossil fuels. Why would we focus on the more miscellaneous uses and hold off on embracing electric vehicles?
If the focus is on nonessential such as flying lobster across the country then is he saying that we should NOT move to electric cars UNTIL we stop flying lobsters, etc? Or do we use alternate methods. Would those alternate methods not include electric vehicles?
His words can be interpreted several ways and his intent (read his following comment) apparently was different than your interpretation. Thus, rather than presume, I asked a question representing my best guess at what he was getting at.
I asked: "Are you asking why move to clean renewables?"
Nerm could have simply made his point clear. Instead he launches into a series of accusations. I do not appreciate that and I would expect that you would not either.
I don't think he was saying address ALL ancillary uses of fossil fuels; I just think he was suggesting that we not dismiss it either.
Personally, I think there's a lot of flawed logic with EVs. There's unanswered questions about what to do with that E-waste when it comes to that. Also, what kind of planet damage is occurring to obtain the materials for these car-sized batteries? We'll never completely stop the use of fossil fuels... not as long as we continue to use plastic in everything.
So you want to go off the focus on electric cars and discuss why, if global warming is real, we are not in crises mode shutting down all nonessential uses of fossil fuel worldwide? And you accuse me of moving the goalposts? You want to debate global warming? You want to discuss why so many people dismiss AGW as bullshit? I thought this seed was about Congress favoring the wealthy by supporting the growth of infrastructure in support of electric vehicles.
The market for electric vehicles has momentum. They are coming. And they are net good. They help address pollution, global warming and generally are better for the environment. Supporting electric vehicles is good for everyone! This is not catering to the wealthy in any way. Many electric vehicles are already affordable for the average American and with more growth the prices will continue to drop. Pretty much everyone will have access to affordable electric vehicles.
Thus, we should proceed with rolling out electric vehicles. The fact that fat cats are being wasteful should not have any impact on whether or not Congress helps develop an infrastructure which would enable broad scale usage of electric vehicles in the United State.
Again, what are you arguing? Are you against electric vehicles? They are not simply for the affluent.
What? Imagine the vast majority of our carbon emitting, fossil fuel vehicles using electrical engines. That does not accomplish much?? Look, I am in favor of using renewables in all sorts of applications but I would never argue against electric vehicles on the grounds that they will not solve all our fossil fuel energy problems.
No, I did not have a SINGLE interpretation of your comment. I simply took another guess based on your emotional reaction.
Why are you starting this up again if not to troll??
I told you multiple times that I did not make a strawman assertion. I asked you a question; a fucking question Nerm. A question designed to clarify what you meant by 'Why'. And then I even answered that question in case that is what you were getting at.
All you had to do is state that this was not your point and then clarify. Simple. People do that all the time when asked a question.
Since I have detailed this several times there is no way on the planet that you do not understand my intent. You refuse to acknowledge this and continue with this obtuse notion that my question was a strawman.
Don't expect people to engage you nicely if you continue with this kind of crap.
If a comment is not clear, is it appropriate to ask a clarifying question?
Should that clarifying question be deemed a strawman argument?
What if the clarifying question is broken down in later comments with very detailed explanations to make the intention of the question crystal clear? What if this is repeated several times?
What is one supposed to do to get someone to be more clear on what they wrote and to stop making trollish accusations of strawman arguments, moving goalposts, etc.?
Should we abandon the move to electric vehicles or should we accept the fact that any new paradigm will have new challenges that must be addressed?
Lithium is rare and must be mined. I expect we will move to alternate battery technologies like zinc-ion. We will continue to improve.
Probably not, but you agree with cutting down our use of fossil fuels, right? So is moving to electric vehicles progress?
I've never had an issue with questions for clarity. Some are just more sensitive and think that it's an attack rather than an actual question.
To answer your first question... yes, cutting down on fossil fuels is a good thing. Second question, in short, no. I don't think that EVs are the answer. I think we're going to end up with bigger problems than we currently have with the E-waste of EVs.
Once again you are snipping sentences to destroy the context of the comment. so you can overlay your own context, that can only be addressed by writing paragraph long sentences containing all the information being imparted and provides a singular context that cannot be snipped in your effort to make strawman arguments, false allegations, deflections, appeals to ignorance, or any other dishonest discussion tactics.
Joe Biden, politicians, policy wonks, and activists are using the rhetoric of 'crisis' as justification for public expenditures and regulatory policy of questionable merit as a way to influence public opinion and intimidate the public into accepting immediate burdens of higher prices, political favoritism for large corporations and wealthy individuals, and to score political points based on the promise of ill defined, amorphous future benefits that are not likely to materialize according to the history of political use of the rhetoric of 'crisis'.
The existing electric grid possesses about half the capacity to support a transition to electric vehicles, requiring essentially duplicating the existing electric grid which will require a sizeable increase in the need for materials that cannot be adequately supplied by recycling the existing fossil fuel infrastructure and existing vehicles so will require a significant increase in exploitation of natural resources accompanied by associated environmental degradation of land, water, and air.
The political focus on selling technology does not account for the associated environmental degradation that will be required or the associated increases in income and wealth disparities that the technology focus entails while also ignoring the benefits of conservation efforts to reduce consumption that would require less expenditure of public funds, include the population in efforts to address climate change, and lessen the associated environmental degradation that the transition to alternate sources of energy will require.
Electric vehicles and the necessary supporting infrastructure will require more copper, aluminum, rare earths, lithium, plastics & elastomers, light weight carbon fiber, silicon, and other materials that cannot be obtained by recycling the existing fossil fuel infrastructure or recycling existing vehicles, meaning that the electric vehicle represents only a small portion of what will be required to make the transition away from fossil fuels.
Decommissioning the existing fossil fuel infrastructure and existing fossil fuel powered vehicles will generate large volumes of nonrecyclable waste that cannot be disposed of by incineration which emits carbon dioxide, so will require a significant increase in creating landfill capacity.
Because you are continuing to snip sentences out of comments to destroy the context of the comment so as to overlay your own context and make strawman arguments based upon your falsely created context.
Do you normally buy new cars? If so, you should check out the prices for some of the new electric vehicles. The manufacturers are already rolling out affordable new electric cars.
I've purchased only two brand new vehicles in my life. A 2004 Jeep Wrangler for $16K [across 5 years with 0% interest with on time payments... never missed a payment] and a 2012 Ford Fiesta [custom ordered] [also across 5 years at 3.99% interest] for a total of just over $17K over the 5 years. When you're talking about $29K, $39K, etc. for a vehicle... that's no bueno for me, and I suspect Kathleen as well. I gather that I'll never be able to afford a brand new vehicle ever again. The closest that I can afford is the Subaru Cross Trek with a 4 cyl. and a manual trans for $25K... and I get A-Plan through my dad, who retired from Ford. I still can't afford the new vehicle line up whatsoever.
Bullshit. I have been discussing electric vehicles. You are expanding the discussion into global warming. Read what you write.
So here you go writing of global warming (the 'crisis' in your above comments). My comments have been pro electric vehicles based solely on the merits of the vehicles. You first accused me of commenting based on attitude and partisanship yet here you go trying to engage me on a broader topic than what I have commented on.
Nerm, yeah, I think everyone knows that there are political / ideological factions pushing their agendas. My position depends on specifics. In this seed I am focused on the specific of electric vehicles and their supporting infrastructure. If you want to discuss Al Gore style rhetoric and initiatives then find someone who is willing to switch to that focus instead of accusing me of tactics because I refuse to expand the scope to your liking.
Do you understand that renewable energy ultimately is delivered in terms of electrical energy? If you are against expanding the electrical grid then you must ipso facto be against water, wind, solar, and nuclear energy. So what are you trying to argue? Do you want us to stick with fossil fuels and not pursue renewables?
Be clear. What ultimately are you trying to suggest?
Everything we do impacts the planet. Do you think electrical vehicles are going to be more harmful to our planet than fossil fuel vehicles? Moving to electrical vehicles does not ipso facto ignore reducing consumption.
See above. Looks to me that you do not want to move away from fossil fuels.
It is a change of paradigm. Different materials will be used. As the market evolves, the use of materials evolves. The key is to get off of fossil fuels and into clean, renewable energy. All the other factors will be addressed as we have done with the internal combustion engine (e.g. technologies to reduce emissions). It is a process.
Again, you apparently want to just stick with fossil fuels rather than deal with the normal issues of paradigm change. If you think otherwise then your comments are entirely misleading.
Keep lying and attacking Nerm. That is a great way to encourage people to have a civil discussion with you.
Then you are in the used vehicle market. That market is just starting for electric vehicles but it will keep growing.
There is no way to get to the used car price range with new cars so that is an impossible requirement. But new electric vehicles eventually will be used and depreciated into the used car prices ranges.
Changing paradigms is evolutionary and it thus takes time. If we were to move to hydrogen engines instead we would still have all the dynamics of an evolutionary process and the need for time to produce a used vehicle market.
So... why is it that my salary is exceedingly greater than it ever has been, but new vehicles are out of my price range now but they weren't in 2004 and 2012? I won't buy someone else's electrical nightmares either... just sayin. I would at least be able to work on hydrogen powered vehicles.
I do not know MsAubrey. That analysis requires information that I do not have.
But I can say that electric vehicles are getting increasingly competitive with gasoline-powered new vehicles. So those who are in the new vehicle market will have real choices between gasoline and electric vehicles without a substantial price difference.
Until the used electric vehicle market grows, the used vehicle market will be dominated by gasoline-powered vehicles. This would be true no matter what we switched to so there are just certain facts of life that none of us can change. The only way to avoid the problems of a paradigm shift is to simply not change and perpetually stay on fossil fuels.
Then why do you think that electrical vehicles are out of your price range? There are indeed super expensive electric vehicles but there are quite a few set at the price point for the average consumer.
I won't buy a used EV. That's what my comment regarding someone else's electrical nightmares was about.
That is another problem that I cannot solve; that is your personal choice. But in terms of affordability (the question I was addressing) a used electronic vehicle market is going to further the affordability of these vehicles.
One can buy a high end Tesla and spend $$$ but one can also buy the new Mini Cooper for far less. The Mini Cooper would be ideal for local commutes. It is not good for travel given the sparse charging stations.
Why do you take issue with Nerm's "bullshit" as you call it and not with TiG's? His position has been bullshit from his very first response to Norm. Norm's article clearly takes issue with the way the CLEAN Futures Act puts the burden of creating the infrastructure on those least able to afford it and TiG turns it into Nerm being anti-clean, renewable energy, as if that were the subject of the article. Had I been in Nerm's position, I would have asked what his question had to do with who gets impacted most by the CLEAN Futures Act rather than let him derail the topic the way he did.
I agree. People think that Electric Vehicles will solve a lot of problems but that's because they are only looking at the end product. In reality, they aren't nearly as green as people imagine them to be. The environmental impact of producing just the batteries for EV's, let alone the rest of the vehicle, is pretty grim even at current levels and will only get worse as governments force people to convert. Then there will be the problem with what to do with expired batteries. You can read about lots of ideas but as you suggest about learning from the past, they are just ideas and not proven. As more and more EV's are produced over conventional vehicles, tremendous amounts of resources like lithium, cobalt and copper will need to be diverted to car batteries, driving up prices for all other items that use them. Further, what impact will millions of cars being charged at all hours of the day and night do to the national power grid? What's the life expectancy of an EV or it's battery? What will it cost to replace the battery when it's no longer viable? Will people replace the battery or will it make more sense to just buy a new EV? Will anyone want to buy the old one with a bad battery and, if not, what will be the environmental cost to disposing of discarded EV's?
I'm sure there are other considerations as well, but I'm sure you get the point. It seems to me that we are trying to come up with shiny new EV's and force everyone to convert to them as fast as possible for political idealism and damn the consequences rather than just let it happen naturally.
I did not turn it into anything. If you read what I wrote instead of inferring, my point has been pro on electric vehicles. I was not focusing on the political aspects of this. All was fine until Nerm's comments in response started to counter pursuing electric vehicles. Not simply infrastructure charges to lower incomes but against the idea of electric vehicles. For example:
Does that sound like someone who supports clean renewables and thus (given the context) electric vehicles?
He then went on the attack accusing me of making a partisan argument and having some 'attitude'. Not the makings of a good discussion.
Then this from nowhere:
How on Earth did anything I write suggest I am denying the scientific findings for reducing carbon emissions? That is one of the reasons I am behind electric vehicles.
And that was followed with this:
I had not made a single comment against the point made in the article. I was expressing my support for electric vehicles.
Then this crap:
Beyond obnoxious. Because I stated that I am in favor of electric vehicles Nerm asserts that I just want the poor to pay more to subsidize the rich.
The rest of the thread went downhill from there.
Bottom line: I am in favor of the macro move towards electric vehicles. I believe the time is right to do this and that the benefits are substantial.
I am not in favor of soaking the poor to do this. I have not once argued that I want the poor to subsidize the rich. Later in the thread I started to share my thoughts on this and the net is that electric vehicles will help all of us environmentally so if there is a small increase in electrical bills I do not have a problem with that being sharing by all. I also noted that I would like to see the users of electric vehicles take the majority of the burden.
There are all sorts of issues when engaging in a paradigm shift. I focused on the key factor: encouraging the usage of electric vehicles. Because I focused my comments on pro-electric vehicles Nerm translated that into an implicit argument for soaking the poor.
That, Drakk, is bullshit.
Every change of paradigm will solve problems and introduce new challenges. Some want to focus on the challenges as if society will not be continually working to mitigate them. When wind turbines first came out they had plenty of challenges too. The key is to look at the big picture and then work through the challenges, over time.
The key thing that has held back electric vehicles (besides politics) is infrastructure. I am in favor of giving the infrastructure a boost to encourage the electric vehicle market. That is not the same as forcing "everyone to convert to them as fast as possible".
Now, note this. I have replied to you arguing for electric vehicles and in support of helping the adoption of same with infrastructure. This is exactly my position with Nerm. Nowhere have I argued that I want to force people to convert or force the poor to subsidize the rich.
If you were to infer that position from my comment then you will have done exactly what Nerm did.
And yet that was what this article was about. Rather than respond to it, you completely derailed the subject and turned it into what you wanted to talk about.
Couldn't care less. I take issue with you derailing the subject of the article that Norm posted. If you wanted to talk about the necessity of the EV regardless of what it will cost, you should have posted your own article.
No, what's bullshit is your derailment and then expecting Norm to be cool with it. Norm did an excellent job, in my opinion, with dealing as best he could with your derailment anyway. Everything Norm said was completely correct. And, as far as I can tell from your posts, you don't seem to give a damn what switching to EV's would cost the poor. It seems that, in your mind, we need to switch to EV's and that's all there is to it. Doesn't matter what it costs people.
How surprising, when you completely ignored why he posted the article in the first place and just talked about what you wanted to talk about, which is, apparently, the human cost doesn't matter.
Which is why I asked Sandy why she called Nerm on what she considered bullshit but not you. He posted the article to talk about the article, not about whether you thought EV's are necessary or not. And the whole time you try to make him seem like the unreasonable one.
Um, no. I think he was saying, as I would, that you don't seem to care about what the poor would have to pay. Just doesn't appear on your radar because you seem to think the benefits of EV's would be worth it in spite of what it would cost them. If so, I don't think you've done enough research on this. EV's, and what it takes to produce them, are nowhere near as green as people think they are.
As for your support for EV's...
I read that in order to reach the goal of zero vehicle emissions by 2050 as planned (assuming the far left doesn't try to accelerate that) we would, right now, have to almost double the amount of the world's production of cobalt, divert 75% of lithium production and at least 50% of copper production just for making car batteries. Aside from the fact there's no such thing as green mining and is in fact one of the most ruinous processes we engage in, what do you suppose that sort of thing will do to the cost of all other products produced in the world and the impact that rise in cost will have on the poor? And that's just for those three resources!
And then, as Nerm has pointed out a number of times, we don't have an electrical grid to support EV's nor the power production, either. THAT'S got to be paid for as well, right along with all the charging stations. Who would you guess will pay for that??? With so much copper needed for car batteries, how much more ruinous mining will it take for the world to make enough copper to do all this? Sure, we can reclaim some copper from replaced grid lines but it will still take a lot more copper than that. And that doesn't even cover things like transmission towers or the cost of burying cable, insulation and all the other stuff I don't know to think of. Then new power stations and all that implies.
Even if we manage to switch to all EV's by 2050, the amount of pollutants and green house gasses it took to make that happen might push the break even point so far into the future we may wonder why we even bothered. No, TiG. EV's aren't as green as people think they are and it is far from a simple switch from one's gas guzzler to an EV. People just think they're green because all they see or think of is the shiny end product in the show room.
I made comments pro on electric vehicles and you spin that into derail. How the fuck is being pro on electric vehicles a derail on a seed dealing with electric vehicles? Derail means to move off topic: focusing on the good of the subject of a topic is not a derail.
That covers the majority of your attack comment.
You offer generalities and deem them all as bad. You start with an argument of: 'but what of the unforeseen consequences?'. So tell me Drakk, are you against a general strategy of moving to clean renewables? Looks like you are. You can only envision a ruined planet and increased poverty.
That is what we call a defeatist attitude.
So, logically, we take steps to expand the grid. What exactly is your problem here? When demand increases we naturally take steps to increase supply. You think that magically this fundamental dynamic does not apply here?
Note Drakk, you are not putting forth specifics. You are talking in general terms; terms that include all sorts of possibilities. Is it your view that the planet should simply abandon pursuit of electric vehicles? Are you saying we are moving too fast? What is metric for how fast we should move? If you are going to get into dismissing ideas then at least provide the specifics of that which you dismiss. Stating that we have problems securing enough copper is a general dismissive statement that indicates one-dimensional thinking. It ignores the well established fact that human beings continually evolve clever alternatives. It also ignores the fact that if there are factors that prevent a certain level of electronic vehicle support then the growth will indeed be inhibited. It is not as though the electronic vehicle paradigm shift is going to simply run over our socio-economic/political system as some unstoppable force.
Might, maybe. Your argument is emotional.
People think electric vehicles are green because they do not emit noxious substances into the atmosphere. Start with the big picture. Fossil fuel strategy has almost no choice but to produce intolerable levels of emissions. However electric vehicles do not have these emissions. So logically, from the big picture, it is sensible to have vehicles that do not produce these emissions.
Right?
So is it as easy as that? No, of course not. There are all sorts of real life challenges that we must deal with in order to make this paradigm shift. We know that the end result would be good so we now work to achieve it without causing consequences that make things worse.
Don't be such a defeatist. Human beings accomplish some pretty amazing things. We will either have low or no emission vehicles (e.g. electric vehicles) or we will fail to do so. Based on what I have observed I am confident that we will indeed move from fossil fuel to electric vehicles and all the natural challenges along the way will be dealt with.
That is, I think society will be successful in spite of the defeatists out there looking only at the challenges and not spending any time trying to come up with creative ways to be successful.
If I am doing what Nerm did, it would be to speak in terms of the article he posted, just as he did. The subject is the cost and who will bear it disproportionally, not whether you think EV's are necessary.
In my opinion, you do when you totally ignore the premise of the article and simply say it's something that needs to be done. The article is simply talking about how much this is going to hurt the poor just for the charging stations. That's just the tip of the ice berg.
You can't possibly believe that the people who stand to make money from the switch from fossil fuel to EV's are going to do it responsibly. They are going to rape third world countries and peoples environments in order to produce the resources to meet possible demand. Just as they have always done. Do you think they're going to first develop "green mining" before exploiting resources needed to make EV's a reality? Do you think they're suddenly going to insist that third world governments make sure their citizens are paid fairly for the work they do, as opposed to what's happening now?
Not true, in my opinion. What has held back EV's is corporate greed and government corruption. Nerm was right. We had electric vehicles a long time ago but as time went by big oil throttled any challenge to fossil fuel. Had we honest government we might already all be driving EV's decades ago. EV tech would have evolved in the same manner and pace as the internal combustion engine as well as the infrastructure to support them. At a sane pace.
Instead, we have the far left pushing a utopian green new deal that has to be done so fast they won't give a damn about what it will cost people or the planet in order to achieve it. As I said, all they see is the shiny end product in the show room and not a thought about what it took to put it there. As hard as they're pushing this, it's going to hurt. Hurt a lot.
I'm not necessarily against EV's and I doubt Nerm is, either. What I'm against is the assumption that they're better than other options such as hydrogen or public transportation. I'm also against making everyone pay for it through taxes as much as I am against football teams making taxpayers pay for their stadiums. If a person wants an EV, why not drop an extra line from the power poll to a separate meter in the garage or whatever and pay for it that way? And for public charging stations, well, that's what capitalism is all about. Let private business build them.
Lastly, it's more than likely all of this is a moot issue. In my opinion I find it highly likely that personal ownership of vehicles of any kind is mostly on the way out if self driving cars are perfected. What we will almost certainly end up with is automated cabs that people will just call for when they need to go somewhere or take public transportation. Why bother with the cost of a vehicle and it's upkeep, storage and insurance? We would end up with charging stations that were seldom used or were taxpayer built but basically just given to self driving cab companies. Transportation grids would be automated, meaning you wouldn't actually be able to drive even if you owned your own vehicle as it would interfere with a computer controlled traffic flow.
Because the seed is not about electric vehicles. It is about the economic burden the poor will bear concerning the governments plan to pay for the charging stations.
I didn't say anything about unforeseen consequences. I gave you specific examples. The near doubling of cobalt mining apparently necessary just to be able to produce enough batteries, and just batteries, for EV's. We know what mining cobalt entails because we are already mining it. 60% of the worlds cobalt is mined in the Congo by some of the poorest people on the planet using just hand tools and little or no safety equipment. The operations have no environmental impact measures and pollute surrounding ecosystems, including rivers. Health hazards to the workers are numerous.
Lithium, mined in South America needs 500,000 gallons of water to mine just one ton of it, according to one article, resulting in water pollution among other things like deforestation and health hazards. It didn't mention anything about mining methods so I don't know what the workers conditions were like, but I doubt they are great.
No. I'm against politicians stampeding people into precipitous action that has no real logic behind it.
I have no problem with expanding the grid. In fact, before we start talking about making anyone pay for charging stations, we should not only modernize and expand the grid, we need to increase power production. That needs to be paid for as well. That's going to take a lot and cost a lot. What point in all these charging stations when we don't have the capacity to power them? How about we do the grid and power production first, get that paid for at a pace that won't hurt, then worry about charging stations?
Then I wonder what you consider specifics? I noted that cobalt, lithium and copper would be needed in greater quantities than ever before, meaning an increase in mining, a process that is the opposite of green. I mentioned that devoting so much of these resources will inevitably raise the cost of other products that also use them, making it even more difficult for the poor. I gave other examples as well. What sort of "specific" would you consider specific?
I didn't state we'd have problems securing enough resources. I said that there'd be costs in doing so. Negative costs that will offset some of the advantages of EV's.
Cool! Then you can tell me how we've cleverly solved the recycling and garbage problem the world has.
In what way?
Exactly! They don't think beyond that at all. They just see the shiny end product in the show room and never give a thought to all the processes that are definitely not green in order to get that EV in the show room.
True, but they are not required to be battery pack electric. Hydrogen is one option that is a lot easier to achieve than battery pack EV's and the infrastructure they would require would also be a lot easier and cheaper. That includes environmentally.
Don't be so deaf. You're still trying to make this all about promoting EV's at whatever cost rather than looking at the problems. Actually listen to what is being said instead of just reacting to it. Most people have nothing against achieving zero emissions, including me. It makes no sense to me that we're going to burden people, especially the poor, with charging stations that aren't going to be any use to them for years, if ever. And considering what battery pack EV's are going to cost us, and the pace at which we are trying to make the switch, it seems likely we are going to do a lot of damage to the planet and to people trying to make it happen.
I especially can't understand why we're talking about charging stations in the first place rather than hydrogen refueling stations anyway. Seems to me hydrogen has it all over batteries in about every way imaginable. They refuel as fast as any gas powered vehicle. No need of charging stations. Range is much farther. Infrastructure would be lightyears easier. Why is there no public discussion over that? Not even a whisper. From what I understand from the people in California that have them they're great. The only problem is a lack of enough refueling stations.
Because Nerm completely fabricated TiG's position. You don't have a problem with dishonesty?
The all electric economy is following the same progression as nuclear energy. Nuclear energy held great promise. The government supported the installation of nuclear power plants in a manner similar to installing alternative energy and, now, the specific example of EV charging stations. The burden of constructing nuclear power plants fell on consumers of electricity. Now the burden of decommissioning nuclear generators is falling onto rate payers, too. Who received the benefit from nuclear generation?
The public has seen these government schemes before. And past government support for new technology transferred income and wealth from the bottom of the economy to the top.
We're repeating the same mistakes for the same reasons.
Man... that would piss me off if I couldn't drive my own damn car!
And I've done a hydrogen fuel conversion... MUCH EASIER!!!
Who are you to change the rules of this site?
In an article that argues against government involvement in extending the infrastructure for electric vehicles it is absolutely on topic to opine that the move to electric vehicles is good and welcome government infrastructure support (albeit qualified because I am against imposing a burden on the poor).
You just broke your own new rules for this site. How dare you speak of the motivations of those who will be involved in the electric vehicle market. By your rules we can ONLY speak of the costs of this initiative and who will bear it.
See, look at what you just reiterated @1.1.52 too:
Well then this seed is not about motivations of those bringing electric vehicles into society.
And every sentence in your comments that argues against electric vehicles on merits is also, by your new rules, derailing. Get it?
Given my disgust with what I have read, I am not going to respond to the balance of your comments. It is blatantly obvious that you are simply attacking. You accuse me of derailing an article simply because I made favorable comments of electric vehicles in a seed that is arguing against government support for same. Yet in the same comments you, by your own new rules, derail.
Get a grip on your hypocrisy and your remarkable view that you can create new rules for this site. Maybe if you engage me in a civil fashion I will respond. In the meantime, understand that the meta crap that you included in your comments is derailing. Speaking on the pro side of electric vehicles in an article that is arguing against government support
Now wait a minute here Nerm. Drakk has informed me that it is a derail for me to weigh in on the positive side of electric vehicles. Thus you are derailing your seed, per his rules, by speaking of nuclear energy. Per his rules, you can only speak of the undue burdens placed on the poor by congress to support electric vehicle infrastructure. No speaking of the pros of electric vehicles, no speaking of alternate energy infrastructure, just a super-narrow focus. Any variation from that narrow focus is a derail.
Or do you think we should disregard Drakk's special rule? Or is the rule really that only comments against promoting electric vehicles are allowed and everything else is simply deemed a derail?
Hydrogen does have some kinks to work out but it seems clearly the better choice to me. My only guess as to why battery EV's are being pushed is that some people would make a lot more money than with hydrogen.
It's a comment from someone who has seen the failure of nuclear energy, the failure of recycling, the failure to pursue energy efficiency, the failure of commuter lanes, the failure of high speed highways bypassing rural cities, the failure of high speed rail not serving the communities where it operates, the concentration of air transport in metropolitan areas. The more affluent parts of society have not been paying for those failures. The burden of these failures have been carried disproportionately by the bottom of the economy.
Transitioning to EVs will reduce demand for oil by less than 40 pct. Only 40 pct of produced oil is being used for fuel and light vehicles do not consume all the fuel being produced. Transitioning to EVs won't end big oil.
The biggest benefit that EVs will provide is a reduction of air pollution in large urban areas with higher traffic density. The same reductions in air pollution could be accomplished by mass transit paid for by riders. That would be equitable; the areas that receive the benefit pay the cost. But that's not what is being proposed. These more affluent urban areas will receive all the benefit but everyone will bear the cost.
I do have a problem with dishonesty but I disagree that Nerm fabricated TiG's position, which isn't that hard to understand. We should have EV's no matter the cost because the idea of EV's are really neato! And tough tacos about who it adversely affects or who really gets the benefit.
And if you want to go with dishonesty, let's go with TiG's very first response to Nerm, which implied that to be opposed to the plan for charging stations means Nerm must be anti-renewable and anti-sustainability rather than talk about the ethics of unfairly burdening those least able to afford it. He made any strawmen in this discussion right out of the gate. Nerm's being concerned about who's ultimately bearing the cost doesn't make him anti renewable or anti-sustainability. Basically, what TiG has and is attempting is to quash anyone who even questions EV's.
That argument only stands on snipping bits and pieces that ignores the context of the comment and allows you to overlay your own context. You are not attempting to discuss the point I made within the context of my comment.
You are engaging in dishonest discussion to score points. So, you win on points. BFD. Meanwhile the world burns, disparities grow, and problems are being addressed politically by changing the drapery.
How'd that work? I've haven't really researched the details on how to make a conversion. Sounds interesting, though.
Agreed. Did you know that in the most recent EVs, the "battery pack" is the entire bottom of the vehicle... as in part of the infrastructure? There's no such thing as replacement of those batteries. And considering I was working on prototype hybrids in 2002, there's not been enough time to say how long those infrastructure batteries will last. Battery dead? Gotta buy a new vehicle altogether.
You replace the fuel lines, fuel tank, and injection system. There's regulators built into the tanks. It's actually quite easy to build conversion kits for CURRENT vehicles. No need to buy a new car.
From the last source:
But questioning the government's approach or the need for government involvement does not translate to opposition to EVs, as you attributed to me.
Is the government installing EV charging stations addressing a need or a desire? Does government installation of EV charging stations warrant the associated increases in prices to pay for maintaining the charging stations? What's the benefit? And does the benefit justify the cost?
There are communities where electric golf carts are a primary mode of transportation. Would government support for a transition to that mode of transportation provide greater benefit for the expenditure of public money? What purpose is served for government favoring electric SUVs?
All government provided benefits are associated with a cost. How the benefits and costs are distributed and apportioned does matter. An inequitable distribution of benefit and cost doesn't seem to conform to the concept of environmental justice.
Sounds like converting to hydrogen is fairly similar to a propane conversion. Back in the day it required replacing the carburetor, though. I can see that injection systems make the conversion easier. Thanks for the info.
Hydrogen fuel cells are a different beast. Basically the fuel cell performs the same function as a lithium battery. Fuel cells are viable because less time is needed to recharge with hydrogen. Rapid charging of lithium batteries is possible but, with current technology, drastically reduces the working life of the battery. Lithium batteries are sensitive to the charge cycle. Controls in the EVs do not allow the battery to completely discharge or completely recharge as a way to extend the working life of the battery.
So when I asked if you were against renewables your could have offered the above as your response rather than declare my question to be a bullshit derail. Read your words in this seed. It is perfectly reasonable for someone to take your words as anti-electric vehicles and, indeed, anti-renewable. In fact the above reads as though you are against any change.
If we fail to provide effective high speed rail we will naturally fail with electric vehicles is the underlying message that emerges. You might not think that is your message but you should read what you write objectively.
You apparently do not even know what Sandy is referring to. Read:
There is not even a hint in my comments that I deny that the science strongly suggests that we need to reduce our carbon emissions. Not only do I not deny that, but nothing I said comes even close. That is a completely fabricated position that cannot be reasonably inferred from anything I wrote. It came from thin air.
Dishonesty? It is dishonest to question if Nerm is against electric vehicles?? You have an odd way of inferring dishonesty. Looks to me as though you are here just to attack and are simply affixing negative labels without justification. And introducing your own special site rules along the way.
Implied, huh? It is more than that simple statement. My question is based on all Nerm had written, the tone of this seed and my past experiences with Nerm. I have every right to ask Nerm if he is against electric vehicles. What a horrible thing for me to do, to ask someone to clarify their position.
Then you do not understand the concept of a strawman. A strawman argument would be me assuming that Nerm is against electric vehicles and then proceeding into a rebuttal that pretends Nerm had made that explicit argument.
You simply labeling comments as strawman arguments is dishonest. You tossing about labels for effect is dishonest. It is disgusting to watch.
Quash. How, exactly? You mean by making an opposing argument? Is it a problem now to offer rebuttals? If so, then you would be changing the rules of the site.
Except a car run on hydrogen fuel can also be run on gasoline. It's a different type of hybrid. And you're absolutely right about EVs and the battery life reduction. The issue arises when you can no longer recharge said battery and the floorboard of the vehicle is the battery.
I have consistently stuck with the position I offered in this seed. You have a negative tone on electric vehicles and I have presented a positive tone. While I am against putting an unfair burden on any citizen, especially the poor, my interest is to express the big picture value of electric vehicles and my support for same.
We are not obliged to engage in debate on every point you raise. Since I do not support, in principle, big government making the poor pay for rich items I have no reason to focus on that dimension. I did not debate you on those points because I agree in principle. What I do not agree with is the negative vibe against electric vehicles in general. As your comments suggest that negativity I will respond accordingly.
You claim dishonesty so where is the example? Where have I written anything here that is dishonest. Back up your allegation.
So no answer to my question. According to Drakk's rules you just derailed your seed again. I cannot provide pro electric car comments without being accused of bullshit, derailing, etc. so I would think the same applies to you and Drakk.
You turned this into a bunch of pointless meta by engaging in trolling. Drakk now piles on with his own. What motivates both of you to engage in this negative meta and make a big deal out of the fact that my comments here have been pro electric vehicles (in an article with comments from you that essentially come from the negative perspective)?
Get a grip.
I asked you a question. Your comments went beyond simply questioning the government's involvement. You questioned the very idea of encouraging electric vehicles and suggested we focus instead on cutting waste. When you make statements like that it is very appropriate to ask if you are against electric vehicles. I asked you a question. I did not simply PRESUME your answer and then argued a rebuttal with the pretense that you are against electric vehicles. That would be a strawman. Instead I asked a question to confirm what you meant. And then I added my answer if you were to answer in the affirmative.
It is amazing watching this display. Asking a question for clarification that follows directly from what you wrote is now a strawman and a derail.
Do better.
Do you have the details for your questions or are you simply asking questions. Put forth some details Nerm. I am not going to engage in an emotional, abstract defeatist discussion.
Why do you want to now derail into a discussion of electric golf carts? Why are you asking specific questions of electric SUVs? Do have some facts to put on the table or are you just firing out any question that comes to mind?
No shit. So you offer a general principle. What, specifically, are the costs to each economic level to support the infrastructure of electric vehicles. How much more will MsAubrey, for example have to pay? How much more will you have to pay? How much more will Gates have to pay?
Lay out the specifics of what you have in your mind. The value of this taxation / surcharge relative to the benefit depends upon the specifics. If the lowest economic level has a 50% increase in their electric bills then clearly this is a horrible approach. If the lowest economic level has a 1¢ increase to their monthly bill then this extra charge is not significant.
What is the specific distribution of charges? Lay out what you have in mind before asking me to comment.
The hypocrisy of this statement is mind boggling.
What you describe in your paragraph above expresses exactly what your question to Nerm was in the very beginning. What Nerm was speaking of had nothing at all to do with whether he was for or against a move toward clean, renewable energy, yet you imply that was his position by questioning what the government was doing.
So spare me your "righteous indignation" and false victimhood. Nerm's question to you, which you mischaracterize....
is obviously intended as a rhetorical question, the purpose of which as indicated by the context of his previous statements, was that there are more immediate and easier to accomplish things we can do to green things up other than saddle low earners with the burden of charging stations that have no immediate use to them.
Nope. That's an obvious invention on your part in a lame attempt at discrediting what I've been saying.
No, what's horrible for you to do is to create the strawman that you have concerning the topic Nerm introduced. The burden of paying for the infrastructure that's planned by those least likely to benefit from it. The strawman is that Nerm just doesn't want electric vehicles. That's dishonest concerning what his position actually is.
Which describes exactly what you've been doing ever since your very first post to Nerm. As I have just pointed out, your beginning question is a classic straw man, since nothing he or the article stated would warrant such a question. From then on, your argument has, in substance, been that any resistance to EV's is simply people being against clean, renewable energy.
It doesn't read that way at all, especially when you take into context all else he has said. There's nothing at all about anything he's said that suggests he's anti-EV or anti-renewable. What he has said, if you would just friggin listen, is that we're going about it all wrong. That is, the way we go about all such things, which is what makes the most money and what scores the most political points, not what makes sense.
No, that's incorrect. An appropriate interpretation would be "if the government failed to deliver on the benefits of high speed rail that were promised, why trust the government to deliver on promised benefits of clean energy?"
The country is transitioning to alternative energy in a variety of ways. What purpose is served by government favoring one specific type of technology?
Look, EV manufacturing is returning to the same sort of design strategy as C rail or box rail ladder frame multipurpose chassis. The availability of lighter, stronger materials for body construction reduces the advantage of unibody construction. That means the manufacturer is only building one chassis with a modular passenger protection cage. The body work is a superficial component hung on the same chassis and passenger module. That's going to make manufacture of EVs much cheaper than current manufacture of gas vehicles.
Auto manufacture may become even more dependent upon oil and coal because of the attractive qualities of carbon fiber. Honeycomb panel construction is light and strong. The purpose of the body work would be to contribute to passenger protection but not to contribute structural strength. The ladder frame power chassis provides the structural strength.
Right now government support is providing an incentive to rapidly produce EVs. What is being produced essentially stuffs batteries and electric components into a unibody vehicle designed for fossil fuels. Government spending is interfering with the natural evolution of EV designs that take advantage of what the technology allows.
The current government approach is to force consumers to pay the cost of transitioning to EVs that benefit manufacturers because they should be cheaper to produce. Consumers are going to bear the burden of expanding the electric supply and building infrastructure. Manufacturers will be producing EVs that cost less to build and charging more because of government policy to transition to EVs. The current government approach involves transferring income and wealth from the bottom of the economy to the top.
The transition itself isn't the problem. How the government is proposing to transition is what causes problems.
Remember VW Beetles? The chassis and body were separate.
Replacing a battery would be as easy as replacing the floor pan on a VW Beetle. Not very difficult when the body can be lifted off the chassis.
BTW, an engine that runs on gasoline can also run on biofuels. We could be producing fuel from food waste. Fossil fuels aren't the only option.
I asked a question about nonessential uses of fossil fuels. You snipped the question, ignored the context of the comment, and created your own context out of thin air. You took advantage of the way I had constructed my comment to make a strawman argument and make false accusations.
Do you believe that the government failing to address nonessential uses of fossil fuels adequately addresses climate change? Do you believe that promoting technology that will provide profit for private business while ignoring the carbon footprint of nonessential activities is the proper policy approach for government?
Do you believe the government technology focused policy approach to addressing climate change is more about the environment or more about the economy?
Illustrate the hypocrisy. Don't just toss out labels. Show me where that statement is hypocritical.
You have a problem with me asking you to be clear about your position on renewable energy?
I asked him a question. I did not present an argument as if he had declared he was against clean, renewable energy. That is how one operates to avoid presumption. You are on this meta attack campaign because I asked Nerm a question.
More unsubstantiated labels. My responses back to you have been in refutation of your labeling. Your comments are replete with lies and I will rebut them.
So when Nerm asked me: "Are you denying the science claiming that the need to reduce carbon emissions is urgent?" you think that the context of his statements justify him introducing out of thin air some notion of denial (on my part) about what science is claiming about the urgency of emissions. The question should not tie back to what Nerm wrote but what I had written. If someone asks you if you are denying a scientific claim don't you think that you should have made a comment that suggests such a denial.
I made no such comment. You have nothing but bullshit Drakk.
One lie after another. @1.1.51 you argued that my making pro electric vehicle comments are a derail because: "The subject is the cost and who will bear it disproportionally, not whether you think EV's are necessary. "
Thus any comment that does not specifically address cost bearing is a derail. You decree that any comment about the necessity of electric vehicles is 'wrong'. You then immediately engage in the hypocrisy of breaking your own rule.
And your rule, by the way, is completely out of whack with this (or any site I know of). Most everyone commenting on this seed (and the seeder himself) has broken your rule repeatedly. Your rule is not a site rule ... it is bullshit that you made up to continue a bullshit attack while hypocritically violating your own rule.
It is disgusting to behold.
You have yet to deliver a strawman from me. You claim, but you do not deliver. You invent rules to try to support your strawman claim and then violate them.
A strawman argument occurs when someone rebuts an argument that their interlocutor DID NOT MAKE. If you are going to accuse me of a strawman then show me where I rebutted an argument that Nerm did not make. My question followed directly from what Nerm wrote. I asked the question to ensure I was clear on his position. Then, once clear, I would engage in rebuttal.
You apparently cannot recognize proper protocol to avoid a strawman argument and inexplicably declare the qualifying question to be in itself a strawman. How ridiculous are you going to be here Drakk?
Well then you should read instead of invent. Read in Nerm's opening editorial:
He talks of costs and he also characterizes electric vehicles as 'shiny toys' that have 'nothing to do with the environment'. So use your brain a bit here and tell me if characterizing electric vehicles as 'toys' raises a question about the seeder holding an anti-electric vehicle. Show how it is wrong to ask the seeder about his position.
Now read his opening comment:
Now he frames this as a hoax. Again, does the objective reader get the impression that this seeder might be anti-electric vehicles? You find it wrong to ask Nerm upfront if he is against electric vehicles? Worse, you deem the question itself to be a strawman.
Nerm answered that he was not against electric vehicles. He then discussed the history of clean energy (immediately violating your contrived rule):
My response was to accept his 'no'. I did not object in any way. I accepted it and moved on with no mention until later comments indicated yet again an anti-electric vehicle position. My reply focused on the balance of his comment regarding the history of renewable energy:
You label this series as a strawman. You thus have no clue what constitutes a strawman (or you are simply being dishonest). Either way it is ugly.
I only asked a question for clarification. You completely ignored my comment about nonessential uses of fossil fuels which suggested that you didn't think reducing consumption of fossil fuels was urgent or a crisis. Your comment appeared to be opposed to conservation efforts so I asked for clarification.
In other words, I gave back what I got.
Okay you generalize from electric vehicles to clean energy and translate 'we' into 'the government'. I used 'we' because it includes all who are involved. That means both public and private sectors. You want to limit this to simply a failure of government and implicitly exclude all others as having failed.
Fine. My point still stands regardless of how you define 'we' and works well with your generalization. Read your statement and tell me how it is unreasonable for someone to take your words as anti-electric vehicles and, indeed, anti-renewable.
How dare I ask you about your position.
What are the specifics of the proposal? Apparently you have some specific proposal in mind. Do you have a link? If you think this seed outlines a specific proposal then you are dreaming.
As I have noted before, I could be for a specific proposal for government leadership in electric-vehicle infrastructure or against it. It all depends on the specifics. You seem to be against the government getting involved in principle. I am wary of government involvement in anything but I do like promoting electric vehicles thus I am certainly willing to consider the specifics.
So, do you have a specific proposal in mind or is this just disagreement in principle?
But the new vehicles are not being built that way.... I stand corrected... I just looked for myself. The entire chassis has to be replaced to replace the battery. Seems pretty wasteful if you ask me though.
And yes, I'm aware that biofuel is another option. I even commented to the adopted one about the corn oil fuel... I don't remember what it's called. However, our local Smart busses run on it... it smells like French Fries.
AW! Where did you get that Sarcasm stamp?
The incessant whining.
I asked you be more clear on your 'Why?'. No strawman, no accusation. Just asking you to be clear. I even expressed what I thought you might be getting at in question form. That is normally done to aid in communication.
Frankly I am amazed that asking someone to be more clear on 'Why?' turns into a meta-fest.
Get a grip.
I am not aware of any Federal proposals to conserve energy. I speculate that is because restricting nonessential fossil fuel use would have an economic impact similar to what the pandemic restrictions on nonessential activities caused.
Government investment in curtailing nonessential use of fossil fuels would likely require things like income support while the economy transitions away from those nonessential activities. But that government investment would not require increased exploitation of natural resources to reduce carbon emissions. The government investment would not be driven by profit motivations. Obviously the government could only make that investment through taxation rather than shifting the long term cost onto consumers. That would be an incentive for government to transfer income and wealth from the top of the economy to the bottom which current government policy seems to avoid.
Based on lessons learned from the pandemic a conservation approach would reduce carbon emissions more quickly, would not require such a dramatic demand for resources to expand infrastructure, and would address disparities in the economy. A conservation approach would not stop the transition to alternative energy but that transition would evolve in a natural way that takes advantage of what the alternative technology allows.
Forcing alternative energy into the model of fossil fuels misses opportunities for improvement. Alternatives allows us to do things differently than was possible with fossil fuels. Just because automobiles were an appropriate way to take advantage of fossil fuels doesn't necessarily mean EVs are an appropriate way to take advantage of alternative energy. At present state of development we aren't just learning which alternatives might be better, we are also learning how to better use the alternatives.
It is on the web. But if you use Embed Local Media button on the toolbar and click Insert, you will find it if you scroll through the images shown.
Your question did not follow in any way from what I had written. My question did follow from what you wrote.
Now, read the two questions:
The above is simply a question for you to clarify. Your comments raised that question in my mind. That is, my question is a direct result of reading what you wrote: you were talking about conservation in dismissal of renewables. My question was perfectly natural and followed from what you wrote.
Note also that my question is of the form: "Are you asking ...". That form is clearly asking for confirmation or denial of an interpretation of the questions you asked in context of what you had written thus far. Normal stuff in discourse.
Now look at your question:
Pretty damn obvious difference. I had written nothing even remotely close to denying the science-based sense of urgency regarding emissions. Not a single word. Nothing I wrote implied anything about scientific urgency. Your question if I am denying the obvious came out of nowhere.
Note that the form of your question is accusatory, implying I am denying a fact: "Are you denying ...".
How you could find any hint of such denial in my words is quite a mystery. My conclusion is that you simply invented it. However my question followed from your comments.
I asked for a specific proposal about the cost distribution. Has Congress put forth the specifics of a plan that shows that Ms Aubrey, for example, will be forced to pay a significant (admittedly vague) increase in her electrical bill to support the infrastructure for electric vehicles? If so, then my position depends on what those specifics are. For example, if the increase to Ms Aubrey's bill is 1¢ per month I do not have any issue with it. The reason is because we all generally share on public expenditures and at that rate it can be justified as an expense to help reduce emissions which affects everyone.
However, if Ms Aubrey (who has stated that she cannot afford to spend more on electricity and who has no plans to have an electric vehicle) is forced to endure a 10% increase (just to give a number) on her electrical bill then I am against it.
It all depends on the details.
Now, are you against this on principle or do the specifics matter?
And do not go into another emotional tirade claiming that the above question is a strawman, derailing or whatever.
The proposal for government installation of EV charging stations only covers the installation. Operation and maintenance of the EV charging stations after they are installed will be transferred to electric utilities.
The initial rollout of EV charging stations is small at only 500,000 installations. But the program is intended to make EV charging stations part of the public infrastructure as a public utility.
After the initial 500,000 stations are installed the cost of future installations would be passed on to electric utility customers. And the cost of operating and maintaining all the EV charging stations will be be passed on to electric utility customers. If the price for using a public charging station is too high then the public charging stations will not be an incentive for increasing use of EVs. If the price is competitive with charging at home, then the higher cost will be passed on to electric utility customers.
The key is how those charges are passed on.
I noted yesterday in this seed that I think it sensible for owners of electric vehicles to pay the majority of the costs. This is easy enough to administer given the vehicles are registered. In addition, those using these stations clearly can be charged for the usage.
Congress could cause everyone to have a modest increase in their electric bills (e.g. 0.1%) to help in the cost. This is not unusual and the objective of reduced emissions benefits everyone. And it would not be unusual for this to be progressive as well.
But we do not have any specifics.
Did you miss my question or are you simply ignoring it?:
Now, are you against this initiative on principle or do the specifics matter?
I oppose the initiative to install public EV charging stations because there are higher priorities for transitioning away from fossil fuels, increasing electricity supply and lowering cost of electricity provides more incentive for owning an EV than would availability of public charging stations, there will be a growing incentive for businesses to provide charging stations as employee perks and to draw customers which will make public charging stations unneeded, public charging stations create a small disincentive for EV manufacturers to improve the vehicles, and the public charging stations will provide limited benefit while costs are passed on to electric utility customers.
The initiative to install public EV charging stations has the appearance of being a boondoggle intended to provide political benefit rather than a tangible benefit. We don't need to spend public money just so Congressmen can claim to be green in campaign advertising. There are better ways for government to spend money that will provide more progress in transitioning away from fossil fuels.
Does not surprise me a bit.
So even if there were no charges to the poor and the cost was borne exclusively by the owners of electric vehicles, would you be against it for the reasons stated? That is, would you be against this even if the presumption of this seed (costs borne by poor for the benefit of the affluent) will not occur?
I would expect you to answer 'yes'.
If that is not your position then all you need do is state so. These are confirming questions, not a strawman or any other tactic.
I would rather see the $15 billion spent on retiring fossil fuel generators. IMO that would provide more bang for the buck.
Whatever happened to the idea of an infrastructure bank? Seems like the initiative for EV charging stations would fit with the idea of an infrastructure bank.
Gas utility customers (not electric utility customers as I originally stated) in Minnesota have been informed that they will pay an additional $800 million over the next year because the Texas power grid failed. Some utility customers have been warned that their bills may more than double because the Texas power grid failed.
Why are EV charging stations a priority?
My position is that the federal government wastes trillions of dollars. $15 billion is nothing by comparison. I would be in favor of a number of parallel investments along these lines. Thing is, I do not want the government involved in anything other than oversight (and they cannot even do that well).
Since when does the federal government hold allocations stable? They would likely just 'rob the bank' on the next election cycle.
Texas has its own grid, so why would Minnesota pay more?
That doesn't make sense.
I see no information that correlates the doubling of electric bills due to the Texas power grid failure with the electric vehicle infrastructure. Minnesota?
How do you compare the two with no data?
Why are they a priority to the Biden administration? You would have to research that to find the answer. Every administration will have priorities based on several factors. You can presume it is purely theatre or you can research it to see what they say.
Does that mean you oppose the Federal initiative to install EV charging stations? Or are you just shrugging it off as another government boondoggle? Your meaning isn't clear.
Personally, I want the government to invest public money wisely. I don't oppose Federal spending on transitioning away from fossil fuels. But I do expect more bang for the buck than the initiative to install EV charging stations provides. IMO the EV charging stations are just greenwashing.
This is how it works in MN with NG and yes it is going to have an impact on MN.
areas of MN reached 50 below zero without the windchill factor.
Yeah, it's natural gas prices and not electricity prices. I goofed when I wrote the comment.
The Texas freeze interrupted natural gas supply and jacked up spot prices for natural gas to astronomical levels.
Like I have said, I like the principle of encouraging the growth of electric vehicles within the USA. My comments on a particular plan to do so depend on the specifics. Specifics such as: who pays? where will the stations be placed? what is the placement schedule? how does this schedule correlate with the organic demand?
Without specifics, one can only operate at the principle level. At the principle level I am, as I have made crystal clear this entire seed, bullish on the idea.
Well of course. Who wants to see wasteful spending?
Well we need specifics to see if your opinion is on track or misguided.
Thanks Kavika
Nerm has corrected to gas instead of electric.
Anyway, this seems apples and asparagus to me. The cost distribution of electric vehicle infrastructure compared to spiked costs due to conditions in Texas do not correlate in the abstract. I get nothing from the comparison.
I agree, I think the build out needs to be a joint effort at least including both the private sector and tax payers. With the final cost as usual passed on to the consumers.
My point was to correct Nerms comment from electricity to NG and how the freeze in Texas had a huge effect on the prices of NG in MN.
I intended nothing beyond that correction and the effects of cold in TX and how it affected MN.
As a point of interest where my cousin lives in northern MN the temp never got above 25 below zero for 7 straight days the low hitting minus 50 without wind chill.
Yup, that is how I understood your comment.
Good to know! Thanks!
For me, the specifics matter. I know that I could technically deal with 1-3% overall electricity cost increase; however, many in southeast Michigan cannot. Wayne County is not a wealthy county.
I can see charging stations being funded for maintenance and usage similarly to parking meters.
Some locations can be converted into charging stations, such as abandoned malls or shopping centers. Such areas usually have an electric infrastructure in place to (with some modifications) accommodate a charging station. Not to mention they are typically in a high traffic volume area and the lots can park many vehicles needing charging. Just a thought.
I agree. How can one evaluate a plan without specifics? A great idea could easily be ruined by poor design.
I favor the move to electric vehicles but there are all sorts of ways to encourage this that would work well and plenty that would not.
Here's the details that are currently available. (Provided for the Google-challenged.)
Here's the granular data for the Federal fleet of vehicles that Joe Biden is requiring to be transitioned to electric.
Why do you deliver this with snark?
The point I made is that the details are what determine the quality of an initiative and that you are railing against this initiative in principle (apparently) rather than based on hard facts. Note what I wrote regarding this (one excerpt of several):
This seed declares that Biden's plan will (that is a claim of certainty) force the poor to pay for electric vehicle charging infrastructure for the wealthy. So if one simply goes by the sensationalism this is clearly a bad idea. After all, who (besides partisans) would support soaking the poor for the wealthy? I frankly do not care how someone frames an initiative. I care about the specifics; what the initiative intends to accomplish, why, how, cost, payment, schedule, market justification, etc.
Do we know, going back to my using Ms Aubrey as the example, what impact this will have on Ms Aubrey's electric bill? The details you provided in your link identify $15 billion, 500,000 charging stations, and gives a very general indication of where these stations will be placed (largely along interstates). What the fact sheet does not offer is the key information we have noted as likely not (yet) available. These are the breakdowns of cost, the justification for 500,000 stations, the rollout plan, the costs of maintenance (and who pays), etc.
So if you come across this kind of information (which probably is not yet available) then you might consider seeding that as a public service for the 'Google challenged'.
Based on the current level of details, I favor $15 billion for this kind of infrastructure work. This is genuine infrastructure investment (as described) and I see the value in it. But if it turns out that they are going to significantly charge the Ms Aubrey's of the world for this (who has noted that she cannot take much of a hit on her electric bill and that she has no plans to ever have an electric vehicle) then that changes the picture.
Details matter.
Also, if you really want to make an impact while simultaneously attacking Biden, I would focus on the balance of his $3T to $6T plans (depending upon who you read). $15 billion is nothing relative to that.
The electric vehicle charging is true infrastructure that has clear value. The majority of the plan will likely not have those qualities.
Good post. You opened my eyes to a few things on this subject but I'm pretty much done here. Can't afford any more time on this. Just wanted to say good job.
Wait... you mean to tell me that a political party will create laws and policies that benefit their supporters with financial benefits? Who could have seen that coming out of Washington. /s
I get the argument here, but I don’t drive in poor or underserved communities. Charging stations in those areas won’t benefit me, or anyone in a similar position, at all. I think the idea is to start putting in the infrastructure so that those areas don’t get left behind over the next 10-20 years.
Those underserved communities won't be getting charging stations. But they'll get a rate hike for electricity to subsidize those charging stations.
They will get them eventually, not everything is going to happen perfectly or evenly.
I wouldn't count on that. More than likely it would be mandatory that a number of charging stations would have to be built in some areas that they would have little to no use for years to come.
At this point, we don't even know if electric vehicles are the best choice. Charging stations could become obsolete before they are all installed.
But the need for money to subsidize the charging stations will be immediate. The underserved communities will get the burden of electricity rate hikes now based on a promise of future benefit. The historical track record for such promises isn't encouraging.
The rich will get the benefit now with the promise of little burden in the future. And when the rich lose their immediate benefit the whole scheme will collapse. That's how the promises of future benefit for underserved communities have actually played out.
What's a better alternative then? Perhaps something better will come along once the technology is developed and feasible. Until then, electric is the best and probably only choice after the combustion engine.
A switch to charging stations will probably be gradual, rather than immediate. More populated and urban areas will probably see changes first, where such needs will be more practical and useful.
Someone probably said the same thing about oil companies and related businesses back in the day.
Easy come, easy go, right?
We don't know which alternative is better. Hydrogen combustion, fuel cells, atomic 'batteries', biofuels, and even carbon capture are viable. We don't even know if individual cars will remain viable At present we are attempting to retain existing vehicle design, manufacturing methods, and use. We aren't exploring alternatives to current vehicles; we are attempting to adapt existing vehicles to an electric drive train.
Joe Biden's proposal is to install 500.000 charging stations over the next nine years at a cost of $15 billion.. (That's an average cost of $30,000 per charging station which includes administrative costs.)
There are currently over 280 million registered vehicles in the United States. Annual sales of new cars and light trucks have been averaging around 17 million in recent years. The rental car fleet in the US averages less than 2 million vehicles.
The government spending money on charging stations only encourages the sale of electric vehicles. It's the same model as for government road and highway construction during the first half of the 20th century. Buses were literally thrown under the bus.
Check the source of the seeded article. Can't claim the source is a shill for fossil fuels or for being in bed with solar and wind manufacturers.
I didn't say anything about which technologies are viable. Only whether it is feasible.
It seems easier to adapt current vehicles to newer technologies or fuels than to start over from scratch. Many vehicles are able to utilize flex fuels, even though some are build around existing chassis.
Yes, and?
So? You say that like it's a bad thing. That doesn't mean gasoline/diesel fuel stations are suddenly going to disappear. Ultimately, it's consumer spending that will determine how well electric vehicles perform on the market.
Apparently he thinks electric vehicles are only going to be purchased by the upper 1%.
Somebody better tell all the auto companies that they are making waaaaay too many electric vehicles.
Just to illustrate how ridiculous that is, here is a KIA electric vehicle with a MSRP of $39k
I am sure the Gates' and Bezos' of the world will enjoy driving this little sucker around town because $39k for a vehicle is out of reach for anyone other than the ' affluent '.
Here is the new electric Mini Cooper with a (starting) MSRP of $29.9K:
No, don't invest in infrastructure to make these vehicles more practical; that is just providing the ' affluent ' with more shiny toys paid for by the rest of the nation.
I'm not sure what he's thinking. Current electric vehicles are not much more expensive than their regular fueled counterparts. They're especially practical for city driving or short range trips, even though they have comparable ranges as non-EVs.
As long as people are willing to buy them, auto makers will manufacture them. Simple economics. It's both inevitable and necessary that infrastructure be adapted to accommodate EVs. That is really not that difficult (at least for more people) to understand. Any parking space can be fitted with a charging station. Maybe parking meters can be fitted with a charger? Pop some spare change in and charge your vehicle while you park. Seems more economical that way.
It might be a little cheaper after a federal tax credit. Not to mention reduced cost as technology and battery storage improve.
No, you asked what is a better alternative. We don't know which viable alternative would be better.
We have an existing infrastructure for distributing and dispensing fuel (or power source) for the existing fleet of vehicles. Transitioning to electric vehicles will require abandoning the existing infrastructure and building a new infrastructure, essentially, from scratch. The existing electric grid cannot support a nationwide fleet of electric vehicles of comparable size to the existing fleet of vehicles. That transition will require almost doubling the capacity of the current electric grid. In over simplified terms, we need to build a duplicate of the current electric grid.
Is that feasible?
My point is that electric vehicles will require starting from scratch. A gasoline powered car isn't a wagon with a motor added. Transitioning from horse power to internal combustion engines required starting from scratch.
Selecting electric vehicles as the replacement for internal combustion vehicles puts us on the path to doubling the capacity of our electric grid. The materials used in the current fossil fuel infrastructure aren't what is needed to increase electrical capacity. The materials used in the existing fleet of vehicles aren't what is needed to build electric vehicles. So, recycling won't adequately supply the materials needed to transition to electric vehicles. That puts us on the path of sizeable increases in exploitation of natural resources.
About twice as many used light vehicles are sold each year as new light vehicles in the United States. New light vehicle sales account for about a third of all light vehicles sold each year.
So, yes, those new car prices are unaffordable for many.
New gasoline fueled vehicles are also unaffordable for many. New electric or new gasoline ... the price is based on the vehicle being new. See the flaw in your argument?
Those buying new gasoline vehicles today are the market for buying new electric vehicles.
The process is evolutionary. As electric vehicles become more practical, the new car buyers will naturally migrate over to electric.
And this will also populate the inventory of used electric vehicles and thus develop the used electric vehicle market. So those who predominantly buy used vehicles will start migrating over.
Nobody has suggested that we are going to simply dismantle the gasoline infrastructure. This is an evolution.
So, no, the new electric vehicles are not unaffordable for the new vehicle market.
However, if we're ALL taxed for the charging stations, those that cannot afford electric are getting the shaft by having to pay for someone else's vehicle affordability.
People that own NO cars do not currently have to pay gas taxes. However, any person that's paying for electricity will have to pay for the infrastructure for EVs through increased rates across the board... that's the flaw over the EV charging stations.
That is pretty much how public expenditures work. We all do not get equal return on our tax dollars. It would be impossible to do anything if everyone must equally benefit for the entire duration of the initiative.
For example, we all have to pay property taxes and those taxes support things like our public schools. Those who do not have children in public schools are paying to educate the kids of others.
This is true, but when I can no longer afford to have electricity because of the increase in prices, then it becomes a problem. I chose to live in the city I live in, partly because our taxes are half the price of surrounding areas... do you know why? We don't have a company collecting our recyclables, only regular garbage and have a center for recyclables instead and we don't have school busses... each school type is in reasonable distance to all homes that students can feasibly walk, ride a bike [and all schools have a place to lock up bikes], skateboard, etc. The only one that was a decent distance from our home was the middle school and we had an arranged ride share deal going on with other parents. I didn't want to have my taxes twice the amount as they are just for bus service and recycle pick up.
I agree current new car buyers will be the first to transition to electric vehicles. But the flaw in the comparison is that all car owners are not required to pay higher gasoline prices to subsidize purchase of new cars. The evolutionary process, as you call it, depends upon all electricity users subsidizing the purchase of new EVs.
Increasing numbers of EVs will require expansion of electricity generation capacity. The electric grid is a pinch point that can hinder the transition to EVs. Electricity generators are a public utility and the government does have a role in expanding generation capacity. Simply replacing fossil fuel use on the electric grid is not sufficient; it will be necessary to significantly increase generation capacity above current levels.
If we don't expand generation capacity quickly enough then competition for electricity will grow. It's certainly possible to increase the number of EVs faster than increasing generation capacity. Continuing our current activities that consume electricity while increasing demand for electricity means we either give up on retiring fossil fuel generation or we begin scrutinizing how and why we are using energy to prioritize use.
Scrutinizing our energy use and curtailing nonessential uses can speed our transition to electric vehicles by balancing demand on current generation capacity. Simply placing the burden upon all electricity consumers will only force the less affluent to reduce their consumption of electricity because of cost and make it more difficult for the less affluent to own EVs.
To address the problems you enumerate, it seems we would need an ala carte system where individuals pay only for that which they use. In a society where we inherently (and necessarily) share some things, I do not see how that would work. Do you have another solution in mind?
It is a process Nerm. It takes time to build an infrastructure. In life one cannot snap one's fingers and materialize a complex new paradigm and ensure that everything is equal at every point in time.
It is not an evolutionary process because I label it as such. It is evolutionary out of necessity.
I already addressed this. Renewable energy ultimately is delivered via electricity. The electrical grid will absolutely evolve to enable the distribution of clean energy. So if you are against evolving the electrical grid then you must be against renewable energy. Are you? If not, then why are you presenting the expansion of the electrical grid as some kind of unforeseen / unusual problem?
Bottom line, if you support a move to renewables then part of the price will be infrastructure changes and that includes increasing the electrical grid.
I have yet to read anyone arguing against conservation. I certainly have not. So why am I reading this from you? Yeah, Nerm, of course it makes sense to avoid unnecessary uses of energy. Goes without saying.
I don't and that's why I have an issue with the entire process. No one seems to give a rats hairy ass about the people that are paying for something that they'll never use, or have an income a bit too high to receive any real help or discounts... you know, those of us that are somewhere in the lower-middle.
I'm not against removing fossil fuel generation from the electric grid. But EV charging stations are not what is needed now.
On our current political path we need to build twice the generation capacity for every fossil fuel generator that is removed. We aren't just replacing coal and natural gas generation; we're adding the need to replace gasoline and diesel for transportation. That's what choosing to go all electric means. And if our demand for electricity isn't balanced then the grid will fail and everything will shut down. What happened in Texas could become normal if the government continues to encourage increased consumption while doing nothing to balance consumption.
What the seeded article argues (and I agree with the argument) is that the current political path imposes the burden for the transition on the less affluent while the more affluent reaps the benefits of the transition.
The topic isn't about the merits of making the transition or the merits of EVs. The topic is how to make the transition equitable. Environmental justice has been politically hijacked to force the less affluent to bear the burden of the transition while the more affluent reaps the benefits. People are being forced to subsidize EV charging stations that will provide no benefit for those people. It's not a shared sacrifice or a shared benefit.
I find all sorts of things wrong with our system. But unless we have a way of solving a problem we are stuck with it. That realization does not mean that nobody cares. I suspect most people adopt the position that there are certain things that we do for the good of society as a whole and that we sometimes will get the benefit and sometimes we will not.
Not sure what anyone can do about this. There are many roadways that I never travel yet I help maintain. But on the flipside, the state paid to turn an abandoned road in back of my property into a park and thus I benefit from the improvement in looks.
Much of the problem we are discussing boils down to income inequity. This is the historical problem of aristocracy through poverty and every level in-between. History has shown in quite clear terms that those with leverageable capitol continue to get richer while those who do not flatline. This is a different topic however.
Then you are against electric vehicles because expanding the charging infrastructure is key to expanding the market.
Yes there are all sorts of ways to screw up an initiative. It is easy to speak of all the thing that can go wrong. Every complex undertaking will have many factors that need to be managed. Noting that things could go wrong is not helpful. And it just seems like you are tossing out anything you can think of to go against electric vehicles.
So, sure, there are many moving parts and plenty of complexity in the migration towards renewable energy and electric vehicles in particular. That is the nature of a complex initiative. If people were to run scared of initiatives where things could go wrong we would not make any progress on any front.
Define 'affluent'. I suspect you have your own special meaning for that term.
There are plenty of approaches to deal with that. A simple, obvious solution is charging for use of the service. Only those with electric vehicles would use the service.
But note that everyone benefits as we transition from emissions to clean energy. So you can focus on the small and current or you can look at the big picture over time. It seems obvious to me that a world based on clean, renewable energy is ultimately healthier for all inhabitants of the planet.
It's really not though. When the city, county, state, and federal levels of government are all putting their hand in the working person's pocket [in this instance it's infrastructure for EV charging stations], it's very much the same.
A discussion on how to address historical wealth class systems in society is pretty far beyond electric vehicles IMO.
Why does the market for EVs need to be expanded now? Why does the government need to be involved in expanding a market that will naturally evolve? Why do we need to expand consumption of electricity now when so little fossil fuel generation has been retired?
Magical thinking isn't a substitute for planning and a measured approach to the transition.
And here we go again, off on another tangent that has nothing to do with anything. Arguing about the definition of 'affluent' won't change the disparities and inequities being forced onto the country by political favoritism.
Pick whatever cutoff for 'affluent' that suits your strawman. The facts are that those at the bottom of the economy are being forced, by the government, to transfer their income and wealth to those at the top of the economy.
How does everyone benefit?
The old, tired generality of cleaner air, water, and land completely ignores that the same can be accomplished by simply reducing consumption.
I asked you to define what you mean by 'affluent' and you deem that a tangent. The term is vague. It makes a hell of a lot of difference if you define affluent as 'anyone who can buy an electric car' vs. 'the top 1%'.
Instead of simply answering the question and being clear you launch into yet another obnoxious attack deeming my question a tangent and a strawman.
Get a grip.
Yes, obviously, those who cannot afford an electric vehicle today will be paying more in their electric bills for a vehicle they do not own. No doubt about it. But the meaning of wealthy and affluent makes a big difference here. For example:
Everyone paying more for electrical power to provide capabilities that only the top 1% use.
vs.
Everyone paying more for electrical power to provide capabilities that the top 50% can use now, but enables the growth of a market that will eventually put an end to the super majority of noxious vehicle emissions (a benefit to everyone) and will, over time, become more affordable for all.
Long-term, big picture vs. short-term, myopic thinking.
My preference is for those using the electric vehicles to pay (or pay more) for the infrastructure. I can see everyone paying more due to the benefits to society (pollution) and those with electric vehicles paying additionally due to ownership of the vehicle and directly paying at the charging stations.
That established, people who take initiatives such as electric vehicles and spin them into a mass conspiracy are complaining dead weight.
You neglected to include this part of my statement, "Perhaps something better will come along once the technology is developed and feasible." Again, I said nothing about what is viable. Only feasible.
Where do you come up with such nonsense? The current infrastructure does not need to be abandoned and will not likely to be. It only needs to be modified and upgraded gradually as more EVs are introduced. It's not something that will occur overnight. Neither will gasoline vehicles and supporting infrastructure be "abandoned."
In simpler terms, we need to modify or upgrade the existing grid.
Yes, yes it is!
Electric vehicles are already in production and on the market! Hello?
I have already addressed that. Building new properties and such that require power is done everyday. The power grid is adapted to accommodate. You seem to think EVs and charging stations will suddenly appear everywhere overnight?
Because consumers are buying more EVs and more EVs are being sold. What, do you not want people to drive EVs?
You're assuming these things aren't being planned or at least discussed.
The market is expanding on its own. Biden seeks to hasten the expansion. This does not need to be done in the sense of absolute necessity; it is simply a priority of his administration to hasten our migration from fossil fuel.
The government does not need to be involved. The expansion is taking place on its own. (see above)
Consuming electricity instead of fossil fuel is part of the retirement process. Before we can migrate from fossil fuel we need to have a practical alternative.
'Simply' reducing consumption? Are you talking about people voluntarily consuming less? Some do that (and those that do are doing it now). So you must be thinking about ways to force reduced consumption. Like higher prices? Fines? What is it that you have in your mind for 'simply' reducing consumption?
Well there's a brilliant idea! All our problems will be solved. Why didn't we think of that TiG? [slaps forehead] Lol
I seem to recall someone using the derisive 'magical thinking' term on both Sandy and myself.
Another great idea is sexual abstinence. If only people would voluntarily not engage in sexual intercourse unless they intend to procreate we could virtually eliminate unwanted pregnancies.
People are obviously going to continue to do what is in their own short-term, local interests. They will (speaking generally of course) be more concerned about little Timmy catching that fly ball than the fatal traffic accident on the news. And they will naturally care more about their own convenience than they will about global environmental issues. This is just human nature.
So to get people to consume less in today's world the most obvious tool would be punitive prices. Raise the price of a gallon of gas to $5 and people will start cutting back. Raise it to $10 and people will be scrambling for alternative solutions (in the short term of course). But then that simple solution would wreak havoc with the economy as the price of shipping would skyrocket and with that reduced supply and higher prices on almost everything.
With electric vehicles there already exists an organic demand. Lots of people generally like the idea and are impressed with the vehicles that are emerging. As demand increases these vehicles will get better and the prices will reduce to encourage even further demand. Given the benefits they have regarding emissions, I am quite a fan of this movement so it is difficult for me to poo poo leadership by Biden to encourage the growth of this market.
That said, I of course do not want people struggling to pay their current bills to have to pay inflated electricity prices (if significant, a 1% or so increase is not significant) for an infrastructure that they will not directly use in the short term. A modest increase correlating to helping to cut emissions seems fair given this is something that benefits everyone.
There are ways to make progress, but generally such initiatives are complicated and must evolve over time. In the meantime, it is simply impossible for everyone to have perfectly equitable short term results.
If you say so.
True. But the key word I used with Nerm was "feasible."
Indeed. Our species sucks >kind of sarcastic<
Yes, but as fossil fuel supplies dwindle, price will go up anyway. Better to gradually shift to alternative sources before that happens. That way, economic disruption can be minimized.
Electric vehicles have gotten to the point where they can compete with gasoline/diesel fueled vehicles power and performance wise. I think a larger scale switch to EVs by consumers will occur when the driving range of EVs significantly improves over their gas counterparts. Longer distances using less "fuel" not only means less consumption and environmental impact, but probably less costly than gasoline in the long term. If people have solar panels on their homes, recharging EVs at home is essentially free. Imagine being able to travel hundreds of miles without paying a cent.
I'm with you on that.
Agreed.
It's worse than that, actually. Property taxes are based on the value of your house, not on what services one uses or benefits from in their municipality. If, over time, my income does nothing but keep pace with inflation (that is, I don't gain in wealth) but I use what I earn to make improvements to my house, making it more valuable, I am taxed more because of that value, even though I have neither increased in wealth nor gain a shred more service from the city.
Worse, if wealthy people find the area I live in trendy and start buying property here, the value of my property goes up even though I don't gain a dime of income from that value, but my taxes go up. Possibly enough to where I am forced out of the house I have spent decades living in because I can no longer afford the taxes on my own house. Taxes that still don't get me a shred more service from the city than I ever had before.
Now, add to that what amounts to a tax for infrastructure I may never use at all. But it's even worse. Norm is absolutely right. The cart is definitely before the horse on EV's. It's not just charging stations. Neither the power grid nor power generation capacity is sufficient for what we are trying to do. Those have to be paid for as well. Guess who gets to pay for that??? And diverting all those resources in order to make EV's a feasible reality is going to drive the cost of everything, literally everything, up, making it even harder for the poor to get along.
You call this whole thing an evolution elsewhere. I don't think that's right. What they are trying for is a "great leap forward" not an evolution. Those always worked out great in the past /s
Drakk, you chose to focus on my analogy. Analogies are meant to emphasize a point. The point that I was emphasizing is that in society we will sometimes pay for things that we never use. We should not use the argument: 'but I will not get a benefit from this increase in taxes' because that assumes a reality that simply does not exist. Our society is not ala carte.
Do you hold the position that every tax we pay necessarily must directly benefit each individual taxpayer? If not, then your analysis has been wasted.
How, exactly, do we move to renewable energy without improving the power grid? This is not just electric vehicles, electricity is the medium for distributing clean energy. If one is against evolving our power grid then one is logically against the move towards renewable, clean energy.
So be clear. Are you in favor of clean, renewable energy as a strategic objective or not?
Well you at least picked up on the fact that I consider this to be an evolutionary process. That it will take time to shift paradigms. So do you or do you not think that I am for evolution vs revolution?
If you say 'revolution' (as in forced, abrupt change) then show me where you got that notion.
Key thing I am encouraging you to do is to understand what I actually wrote rather than infer that my support for electric vehicles means I am in favor of soaking the poor to subsidize the rich. Hint: if you read Nerm's comments to me and simply draw your conclusions from what he wrote you will get a grossly distorted understanding of my position.
Forced, abrupt change to me, is removing certain features that one has grown to love and be accustomed to in their vehicles. There are plenty of things that were forced upon us regarding vehicles. Manual window cranks, manual locking features, hell... even actual KEYS, manual transfer cases for 4x4, and manual transmissions are either already phased out or nearly phased out. All of the aforementioned are extremely difficult to find in a new [affordable] vehicle today.
Most US automakers got rid of the less expensive manual trans in the "econo-box" type vehicles recently, why? I can afford an "econo-box" with a manual trans... it's $1500-$3000 less expensive overall than the same vehicle with an automatic. Don't you think that the automakers will phase out combustion engines at some point just as the manual trans is being phased out? Hell, some automakers are even getting rid of their "econo-box" lines altogether and merely sticking with mid-sized sedans and trucks. Again, I'm speaking of US automakers. I'd personally ride my 87 Honda Spree before buying a Toyota Camry. Quite frankly... I'd rather get geared up in a heavy weight snow-mobile suit and ride an Indian motorcycle in 20°F to get to work [almost 30 miles one way]. Lastly, would it be safe to assume that humans, generally speaking, prefer a vehicle that has the capability of going for a long time and actually have the power to "get out of its own way"? More power in an electric, generally means more money necessary to purchase and yes, that's understandable.
Automakers don't want you to be able to fix your own cars anymore. They want you to spend thousands at the dealership to do it. Dealership hourly rate in MI is $150 - $200 per labor hour. So, if the hourly book [I will come back to that in a min.] calls out 2 hours for a job, it will cost [in labor only] $300-$400. I used to help automakers determine the amount of time in that hourly book. They want the mechanics determining this amount of time to work with hand tools only [much slower than air / electric tools] and to work as slowly as possible. They do this with 5 people or so and take an average, sometimes rounding up. Most mechanics use more unique methods that take much less time than the book calls out; that not only makes the mechanic more money, but the dealership as well. The markup on dealership parts is 150% over cost [at least], but most auto parts stores have the same parts available to them and only mark them up 50%-100% over cost. Some parts are only available at a dealership... this is far more common with current vehicles.
Did you know that for my Fiesta, that it would cost me more than $300 to get a new "FOB" to lock / unlock / start my car? Yes, there's a built in feature that prevents you from being stranded, but you know what? They don't give that info in the owner's manual. I had to find that out from watching a YouTube video out of the UK, where they still own manual transmissions and it happened to be one of the engineers that worked on the Fiesta line from 2010 on. Automakers want me to spend $600 + on two new FOBs, but I won't. There is a hidden key inside that FOB if I feel it necessary to lock my doors; however, there's only one door on it that can be unlocked manually... the driver's door. I just don't hardly ever lock my doors. I don't have anything inside that anyone would want to steal and quite frankly... most thieves don't even know how to drive a manual anymore.
To summarize, yes, there's forced and somewhat abrupt changes being made in the automotive world.
Whenever a manufacturer makes a design change that change is forced upon the marketplace. So we are forced to accept all sorts of stuff from vehicles to cell phones. We either accept the change or buy elsewhere. And if all manufacturers are forcing a particular change then we as consumers must make our own or accept the design decisions imposed by the manufacturers.
Not sure there is a way around this.
Now, on abrupt, my view is that abrupt would be government forcing all manufacturers to offer only electric vehicles within five years if they want to do business in the USA. What I see is still very much organic, evolutionary growth of this market. And that is how it should be. The vehicle manufactures are responding to the market demand as they perceive same. That does not seem abrupt or forced to me.
Yes, I absolutely believe that internal combustion engines will become more of a special case with electric (and alternative) engines being predominant.
True. Vehicles for decades now have been far too complex to fix at home. One would need to invest in thousands of dollars of diagnostic tools and that is not feasible.
There is no stopping change. The market is the dominant force that drives this. If people want to stick with internal combustion engines then the auto manufacturers will comply. Certainly that is the easiest path because the skids have been greased for over a century now to stick with internal combustion engines and our infrastructure is all centered around same. And then consider the supply chain and all the changes they would have to adapt to.
Switching to a new paradigm is a big deal. But today the electric vehicle technology is at the point where these vehicles are viable. I expect, therefore, that the USA (and other nations) will see a progressive increase in the use of electric vehicle technology over the next decade or so. I do strongly suspect that internal combustion engines are at the end of their dominance.
It is, but why add to the issues?
But that is likely to become a real issue for some. The last three times my electricity cost went up, it went up by 3% each time... that three times was within a decade. My electric bill is back to nearly what it was before updates to my home, which should theoretically be more efficient. Every time I make my home more efficient, the rates seem to increase within a year or two following. That's not with just electric, but that's the discussion topic, right?
There are people, for example, in Detroit, Redford, Warren, Flint, Saginaw, Ecorse, River Rouge, etc. that currently struggle with the cost of electricity... do you think they can afford a 1% increase? Those are some very dense communities that have to commute or take busses or ride share for work. These are people that are considered lower to lower-middle class. If you think that DTE or Consumers Energy will attempt a mere 1% increase in cost for electricity to upgrade grids, you're wrong. Moreover, if you think that people currently struggling should be happy to help pay for the grid updates and EV charging stations, you'll get push-back.
Then they'll lose customers. I CAN and HAVE built my own car and WILL as long as parts are available.
I think what's bolded is a real possibility. And no offense intended here, but how many people on NT will be around to see all of the aftermath? I'm only 42. I'm quite likely to see and deal with a lot of this aftermath and my kids and grandkids most certainly will. There are too many potential problems that stem from pushing all EV. I've stated elsewhere in these comments that hydrogen fuel is far easier to adapt to and adapt current vehicles to, but it seems that no one wants to take hydrogen into consideration. EV semis are being designed and prototyped, but they're still having issues with the longevity of drivability and strict timing for deliveries coupled with laws regarding time that drivers are actually on the road. It would seem to me that for the supply chain part, EV is a long way away, but many are already using hydrogen. My guess is that automakers will find that there's a certain group of people not willing to switch to EV yet... therefore, they'll be forced to bend to that group by producing more diesel and hydrogen options. But that's just my opinion. Hydrogen is the option I would prefer... again, that may be an unfavorable opinion.
That is correct. Supply and demand. The manufactures are certainly no mystery. We all know what they will do. I have just stated what I think is common knowledge.
And if that is what took place I would be against that.
While the concept of electric vehicles is all well and good, they truly are not that practical if they're used as the primary vehicle. Let's face some facts here. The majority of Americans can't afford a $400 emergency repair bill. A large portion of the population can't afford a new vehicle and buy one that can only get them from home to work and the grocery store.
There's also the problem with minor things like electric vehicles going on fire. To the best of my knowledge, they all depend on lithium-ion batteries. And that's a major problem. Just ask the Houston TX fire department about that:
Another issue is not all people can afford both a gas and electric vehicle. So what do people that like to or need to drive cross country to visit friends and family to do? Drive three or four hundred miles, stop overnight to get recharged and start again the next day? That two day trip for a 1200 mile drive is now a four day odyssey with multiple stops and added expense.
Do you accept the idea that designers will continually improve their designs?
Of course. But until they come up with an alternative to lithium-ion, like sodium-ion, and make distance and recharging times more palatable, and within cost constraints, electrice vehicles are the realm of the, not necessarily wealthy, but much more better off.
The market will determine the pace. There are plenty of people who have commuter vehicles who will have no problem running about town for a day and recharging each night. The manufacturers are not blindly producing vehicles without an understanding of the market and usage patterns.
We are at the beginning of a new paradigm in vehicle technology. As the market grows and new technologies become available to designers, we will see the incremental perfection just like what happened with the internal combustion engine.
It is easy enough to identify shortcomings in this and any other new technology. What is important is to look at the big picture over time and evaluate, considering the reality of continuous improvement, the worth of the transition from fossil fuel vehicles to electric (and other clean energy) vehicles. And that does indeed considering the consequence of the supply chain, disposal, etc.
True and unfortunately America doesn't have the common sense to build out the infrastructure of electric charging stations to where they would really be needed.
And as you state charging stations in underserved communities would be a total waste of taxpayer's dollars at least for many years to come.
Poor people don't have electric cars, if they have a car at all.
Unfortunately, I have seen America especially our government lacks common sense much more that it shows common sense.
Our government many times does not do worth a shit at planning details as well. Just look at the crisis at our border every time a politician changes border policy. With NO planning. Over and over. By both parties.
Personally I would love to see the US invest much more heavily in public transportation, especially in cities. But yes charging stations need to start being placed in areas where people like me actually live and spread out as electric vehicles replace combustion engines more and more.
As the need grows in the more underserved communities then start adding the charging stations, but for now invest in public transportation for those areas.
Too logical Thrawn,
Remember, we are talking about the US government.
Sadly, a government not really known for their common sense or logic.
This is where I think it would be helpful for the US govt to make the funds for such projects available, but rely on state and local governments to apply for and use them where needed. I feel that this is a better task for lower level management.
Of course there need to be strict guidelines for what the money can and cannot be spent on because you know if there aren’t your local assholes, sorry politicians, will spend it on really dumb unnecessary shit.
All true but I have little doubt as you indicate that even many the local politicians would not use the resources logicly or efficiently.
Not to mention more than likely even the Guidelines would be non logical with little common sense behind them.
Why would charging stations be needed in urban areas? Current EVs have an operating radius in excess of 100 miles. So, the charging stations aren't intended for those living in the communities. The charging stations are intended for people travelling longer distances from their home base.
The underserved communities won't be getting charging stations because charging stations aren't needed for people living in those communities. And long distance travelers won't be flocking to underserved communities for tourism or business.
But everyone will see a rate hike for electricity. Those sufficiently affluent to buy EVs will get credits to offset that rate hike. When the credits go away the whole scheme will collapse. And everyone will be stuck with higher electricity costs to maintain charging stations that aren't being used.
I was gonna say the exact same thing.
Gasoline powered vehicle owners do not also own gas stations for their vehicles.
Of course, I'm assuming that people who own electric vehicles also have electricity available where they live. EVs are another mobile electric appliance like cell phones. I haven't seen any government program to install public charging stations for cell phones and laptops that must be maintained by public utilities.
For the time being they probably would not be needed nor used. However it the mane of fairness likely some would be installed.
But Nerm has a good point. Charging stations would be needed mainly for long distance travel although whether or not the stations would be distributed under that idea or fashion is yet to be determined.
Also I'd be in favor of some charging stations being subsidized by all but in our capitalistic society I believe they should be a joint effort between companies and substudies.
The people who use these stations like with gas stations should have to help pay for the stations.
People who walk shouldn't pay as much, although we all will benefit to a degree IF this helps reduce pollution.
Commuters, visitors. There are a fair number of people in my area who commute to the DC area for work. It's 95 miles to the city center, 70 if one is going to a suburb like Manassas. If one were to drive the entire way, one would need to recharge to get back home. Now, most commuters use ride-sharing services or catch the Metro part-way in, but that's not always possible, depending on work hours, the need to leave early or go in late due to appointments or children's commitments.
If I were to want to go shopping for something I can't find locally, that's probably the direction I'd go. I'd need to recharge to get home, if my battery didn't have a range of well over 100 miles.
Tesla range estimates called into question in independent tests - Electrek
Not sure what you're getting at here.
Most electric cars currently have ranges of well over 100 miles.
Which the link provided.
Ok. That's not going to negate the need for charging stations in urban areas. Commuters and visitors will still likely need them, especially if they have a car on the lower end of the range. I'm going to assume that most lose range as their batteries age, so that's something to consider, too.
I can only assume since you quoted someone other than me that your post is meant for them.
No, must have had that still on my clipboard.
Now, do you think that urban areas are likely to need charging stations for electric cars?
A few. Most homes can be equipped easily enough.
I can envision apartments having them as a bonus for residents.
Now we have to figure out who should pay for them.
I say the utility companies which will profit from them should bear the largest costs, along with municipalities which will be collecting taxes on them.
Michigan certainly doesn't have hardly any at all. The company I work for updated our parking lot with charging stations, but we are an automotive electronics tier 1 supplier.
I see a few issues regarding EVs. I can't even afford the least expensive EV at more than $20K. It's not just about the monthly payments; it's the cost of insurance too. I live about 10 miles south of Detroit. The closer to Detroit you are, the more expensive the insurance. That's why I own a vehicle that no one wants to steal... a 2012 Fiesta with a manual trans. Most families of 4-5 with a home, which is pretty typical, couldn't afford a vehicle over $20K, especially one that could haul the whole family. My annual household income is only $69K pre-tax. We'd have to have nearly double that if we were to not only pay for school for a couple kids, but our own student loans as well as the mortgage, the various insurances, have some sort of retirement plan, eat, heat our home, maintain the home, and have one brand new EV plus a charging station to charge said EV. I live in a home that's 115 years old... my regular electrical set up would not be sufficient in charging an EV. Don't get me wrong... it's to code, actually slightly better than code, but it's not meant for a draw of that amount.
Another issue is that I have yet to see any definitive answers regarding what happens when we can no longer "recycle" EV batteries; especially when some vehicles, their entire floorboard / base infrastructure is the battery? It will eventually be that the battery is unable to be rebuilt / "recycled" to sustain the vehicle. And clearly, if the battery is the entire floorboard / part of the infrastructure, it cannot be replaced like in a hybrid.
Last, and most certainly not least, is the issue with charging stations across the nation... like I said, Michigan doesn't have very many places available, and we're "the motor city." We can't even get our "damn roads" fixed properly, so I have my doubts that we'll be seeing charging stations a priority. I can't speak to many other places in the nation, but I believe California is the state with the most charging stations available.
What do you mean, "... not meant for a draw of that amount." ?
1) You have to have a garage.
2) If you have a garage, it has to be big enough to have a vehicle in... meaning you're not allowed to leave all of your lawn equipment sitting out in your yard [you wouldn't want to either].
3) You'd have to have a garage that has electricity run to it.
4) You'd have to have the money for the additional car payment [which I don't have currently], increase in insurance [at least for my area], and the money for the increase in electric usage on top of the aforementioned.
I wonder what the cost of a charging station is. They have been working on putting charging station in at the local Sheetz for over 2 weeks
I missed that. Walmart has had them for a while, as has the municipal lot behind the cafe.
I've seen charging stations in supermarket and mall parking lots. Imagine if each parking spot had its own charging station. "Refueling" would be far more convenient and time efficient.