Electric Vehicle adoption

[AG_PhamD]

I’ve got a few issues with this, and I strongly disagree that the equitable charging provision is bad. It’s actually needed to encourage car makers to make even more affordable EVs. There’s a bit too much focus on the luxury end of the market currently... at least in America.

1. The “average” electric car is a poor choice of metric, and ignores the fact that, up to this point, most EV buyers are fairly wealthy and are buying high-end Teslas, which pushes up the “average” price. The median price is a better measure, and that is about $35K. I paid $25K for mine and got the $7500 credit, so I got the car for $17.5K. That’s a darn good deal for a car that has had basically zero maintenance in 6 years and the savings on gas are huge. You can lease an inexpensive EV for a few hundred a month. FYI - the average price for any vehicle in America (not just EVs) is $40K. Most people are NOT paying $40K for a vehicle. Pretending that a used Nissan Leaf is the only option for people on a budget is also absurd. Cheaper EVs are on the market - I’ve got one, and more are coming too.

2. If there are no chargers in neighborhoods where people don’t have a garage or other way to charge at home, EV ownership is not feasible. The infrastructure needs to start first. That’s why government money is needed to kick-start things instead of just relying on the market.

3. You don’t need many public chargers in most wealthy neighborhood because people have garages and can charge at home.

I’m not saying it’s bad, I’m saying the timing is inappropriate.

I think it really depends on what demographic were specifically talking about about… I’m under the impression we’re talking about poor urban areas. People making minimum wage raising a family probably don’t have $35,000 to spend on a car. The underprivileged area I’m thinking of is not home to people all driving brand new cars. You’re also assuming all these people have good enough credit scores to buy/lease cars. In a lot of communities a sizable portion don’t… let alone have a bank account. And as for tax credits, the bottom earning 50% of the country pays not income tax making tax credits irrelevant for this population.

When you look at the cheapest EV’s, they’re hardly selling anything. The Bolt sells an average of 20,000 cars per year, which is nothing. The Leaf hasn’t broken 15,000 sales since 2015. I think the reality is these cars are not appealing to the vast most buyers, not really surprising. There’s clearly a market for EV’s, but not these.

Not all poor people live in apartment buildings. But for those who do that’s why I mentioned the street charging.

I just think we’re a ways off from high rates of EV adoption in lower class neighborhoods. It doesn’t make sense in my mind to spend 7.5 BILLION dollars on charging infrastructure (with 50% of chargers in low income areas) … that probably won’t be widely utilized for probably at least 5, probably 10 years. Again that’s not to say don’t put in any chargers in low income areas to begin with. Instead, save most of the allocated money so that when such a large number of chargers have practical value, the cost will likely be cheaper and the technology will be new. Or put it toward more dire community needs. I imagine in 5-10 years most current chargers will be obsolete.

In my mind this is akin to building dozens of Denver International-sized airports in the middle of nowhere across America. It doesn’t make sense until there’s a market for these airports to exist.

What does make more sense with Biden’s plan is to install chargers in areas where residents could reasonably adopt EV’s but might not adopt them due to a lack of charging infrastructure and their location is too underpopulated or remote for a major charging network to be bothered investing. Much like the case with high speed internet in rural America.

That said and to your point, if wealthy people can put in home chargers the government shouldn’t be funding pubic chargers in wealthy areas.

To your point about public chargers, I live in a wealthy area of Boston. Most people don’t have garages and their parking space isn’t necessarily directly adjacent to their building where power can be run. I have two garage bays but installing a 240v outlet is probably impossible for any reasonable amount of money as there’s no way to get a line to the circuit breakers. I have 4 close neighbors with Teslas but only 1 has a home charger. The other 3 have to deal with supercharging, which probably isn’t the best for their batteries.

I think there is a bit of out of touch elitism in the assumption that most lower class American’s forefront concerns, or in even top 10, is (or should be) climate change and switching to an electric vehicle. And that doing so is a top financial priority. It’s not. If you ever talk to such a person, there concerns are more along the lines of putting food on the table, paying the bills, having enough money to buy their kids new clothes, maybe they’re a single parent, what about affording the inflation we’re experiencing, access to quality healthcare/affording healthcare, coping with drug addiction and crime in their community, ensuring their kids get the education they deserve. Many are probably more worried about keeping the old car they have running so they can keep their job than what their annual carbon footprint is.

That’s not to say climate change is not an important issue or that underprivileged people do not recognize this… but there’s a basic hierarchy of needs and priorities everyone has. If someone is just getting by, getting an electric car to address the climate is not going to be on many peoples radar.

And while I do think there are reasonable arguments for subsidizing EV’s, it’s one thing to subsidize a $35,000 car for a middle class family. It’s another to subsidize a $80,000 EV for someone making $250,000/year.

 

[SuperMatt]

I think there is a bit of out of touch elitism in the assumption that most lower class American’s forefront concerns, or in even top 10, is (or should be) climate change and switching to an electric vehicle.

Nobody ever said that though. You are insinuating that lower class people don’t care about climate change. Now who is being elitist?

Of course, I told you how I’ve actually saved quite a bit of money by buying an EV. The market is too focused on the high end right now (in America anyway). You are insisting that EVs are more expensive. There are expensive ones, but there are also inexpensive ones, and the savings on gas (especially since it’s unpredictable) are huge.

A lot of people could afford $250 a month to lease a new Nissan Leaf or Mini Cooper or Chevy Bolt. The VW e-golf I got was in the same price range. You can get good lease deals because the manufacturer can claim the full $7500 tax credit even if you cannot. (I think the tax credit should be fully refundable because the way it’s setup now, only somebody with a pretty high income can claim the full amount; fix that flaw and you could help increase the low-mid end of the EV market)

You simultaneously decry the low sales numbers of EVs while opposing one of the biggest barriers to adoption: ubiquitous charging stations. It’s like refusing to run electricity to a neighborhood (imagine a century ago) and, when pressed on it, complaining that they don’t have any electric appliances anyway, so it won’t be useful for 5-10 years!

 

[AG_PhamD]

Nobody ever said that though. You are insinuating that lower class people don’t care about climate change. Now who is being elitist?

Of course, I told you how I’ve actually saved quite a bit of money by buying an EV. The market is too focused on the high end right now (in America anyway). You are insisting that EVs are more expensive. There are expensive ones, but there are also inexpensive ones, and the savings on gas (especially since it’s unpredictable) are huge.

A lot of people could afford $250 a month to lease a new Nissan Leaf or Mini Cooper or Chevy Bolt. The VW e-golf I got was in the same price range. You can get good lease deals because the manufacturer can claim the full $7500 tax credit even if you cannot. (I think the tax credit should be fully refundable because the way it’s setup now, only somebody with a pretty high income can claim the full amount; fix that flaw and you could help increase the low-mid end of the EV market)

You simultaneously decry the low sales numbers of EVs while opposing one of the biggest barriers to adoption: ubiquitous charging stations. It’s like refusing to run electricity to a neighborhood (imagine a century ago) and, when pressed on it, complaining that they don’t have any electric appliances anyway, so it won’t be useful for 5-10 years!

Actually, if you look at the top voting/policy concerns of low income voters, climate change is not one of them. In fact, for general voters it doesn’t even break the top 10 policy concerns. I’m not just making this up and frankly this is a well known reality.

That’s great that you’ve saved money driving an EV, but the doesn’t mean low income individuals have the capital to invest in an EV. Again, I’m not sure where you get this idea that low income individuals have $30-35k or even $25k to spend on a new car… any new car for that matter EV or not.

Same story with being able to afford $250/month on a lease. This is a population who is unlikely to have the credit score necessary to lease or finance a car.

I apologize for calling your views elitist but frankly your views are so out of touch with reality. Honestly you’re suggesting people spend their entire annual income (or more) on a car… just think about that for a moment.

And these $250/month advertised lease deals are dependent on having top tier credit. They also probably want at least $3000 down, which these people may or may not have. Furthermore, I’m not sure if you’re paying attention to the car market these days but I suspect these deals no longer exist. Everything is selling at or above MSRP and if a deal exists it’s unlikely the inventory exists.

In suburban areas where charging is available and residents can easily affordi EV’s, these low end electric cars are not being sold. For one thing, I think sub 250mi range is a no-go. You can argue 200-250 miles is sufficient for most people, but it doesn’t change the reality. Secondly, there is clearly market preference for SUVs. That is what it is.

Your argument is more like installing electricity in on-electrified areas, but the populations cannot afford the appliances to use said electrical system.

You can install chargers on every street corner in a low income area, but until the population can actually afford EV’s it’s just wasting money and I suspect making less resources available when they’re actually needed in such communities.

 

[SuperMatt]

Actually, if you look at the top voting/policy concerns of low income voters, climate change is not one of them. In fact, for general voters it doesn’t even break the top 10 policy concerns. I’m not just making this up and frankly this is a well known reality.

That’s great that you’ve saved money driving an EV, but the doesn’t mean low income individuals have the capital to invest in an EV. Again, I’m not sure where you get this idea that low income individuals have $30-35k or even $25k to spend on a new car… any new car for that matter EV or not.

Same story with being able to afford $250/month on a lease. This is a population who is unlikely to have the credit score necessary to lease or finance a car.

I apologize for calling your views elitist but frankly your views are so out of touch with reality. Honestly you’re suggesting people spend their entire annual income (or more) on a car… just think about that for a moment.

And these $250/month advertised lease deals are dependent on having top tier credit. They also probably want at least $3000 down, which these people may or may not have. Furthermore, I’m not sure if you’re paying attention to the car market these days but I suspect these deals no longer exist. Everything is selling at or above MSRP and if a deal exists it’s unlikely the inventory exists.

In suburban areas where charging is available and residents can easily affordi EV’s, these low end electric cars are not being sold. For one thing, I think sub 250mi range is a no-go. You can argue 200-250 miles is sufficient for most people, but it doesn’t change the reality. Secondly, there is clearly market preference for SUVs. That is what it is.

Your argument is more like installing electricity in on-electrified areas, but the populations cannot afford the appliances to use said electrical system.

You can install chargers on every street corner in a low income area, but until the population can actually afford EV’s it’s just wasting money and I suspect making less resources available when they’re actually needed in such communities.

This is elitism. You would probably consider me low-income since you live in a fancy-pants area of Boston. So don’t tell me what low income people want or need. You are the one who is unbelievably out of touch with reality.

This post is right-wing talking points surrounded by walls of text trying desperately to justify them.

Nobody is asking to put chargers in areas where people don’t have cars. They are saying to put them where there is street parking only. STREET PARKING. As in, there are already cars parked there.

The argument about people who don’t have cars is a distraction that has zero to do with the discussion.

And to argue that we should have areas with no electricity in 21st-century America? Really?

And you call me out of touch…

 

[quagmire]

And when politics comes into the discussion is when I am out.....

EV's are in a position that seems like you can't just have a reasonable discussion. Between this squabbling, the BS I see over in RP's thread on MR( someone saying they won't go EV unless it can go 5000 miles between charges), and the hatred of EV's I see on a Camaro forum I am on shows there is little serious intention in reasonable discussion and has turned into, " I have to be right and I will do anything to make it so".

 

[Herdfan]

someone saying they won't go EV unless it can go 5000 miles between charges), and the hatred of EV's I see on a Camaro forum I am on shows there is little serious intention in reasonable discussion and has turned into, "

You would have to fill the bed of my truck 2/3 full of fuel to go 5,000 miles. That's ridiculous.

Now I get the Camaro forum hating them. Only a matter of time before some "mom car" EV smokes them off a light.

 

[SuperMatt]

And when politics comes into the discussion is when I am out.....

EV's are in a position that seems like you can't just have a reasonable discussion. Between this squabbling, the BS I see over in RP's thread on MR( someone saying they won't go EV unless it can go 5000 miles between charges), and the hatred of EV's I see on a Camaro forum I am on shows there is little serious intention in reasonable discussion and has turned into, " I have to be right and I will do anything to make it so".

I wonder why there is such fear and hatred of electric vehicles. I think they are great.

 

[quagmire]

You would have to fill the bed of my truck 2/3 full of fuel to go 5,000 miles. That's ridiculous.

Now I get the Camaro forum hating them. Only a matter of time before some "mom car" EV smokes them off a light.

Yep.

Same with the expectation that they want an EV to operate just like an ICE car. It's not like the adjustment is a steep one or hard. I get the desire for faster charging times or at the very least that 15 minute stop gets you 300 miles of range instead of the current 180 miles or so. But an EV won't be like an ICE vehicle. The fact they are that closed minded to any type of change or adjustment is just weird. They all have had to make adjustments in life. Computers, phones, etc. But not their cars for some reason.

 

[rdrr]

The only issues I have with EV vehicles is the time that it takes to charge, and technology is working on that issue. The Range issue seems to be on par with an ICE vehicle.

 

[DT]

I wonder why there is such fear and hatred of electric vehicles. I think they are great.

I was perusing the electric car thread at TOP, I see posts like this:

"Quite a few vehicles on the roads are doing a few hundred miles a day [...]"

That's not the case at all, again, sure, there are daily use cases that match the above, but when you look at daily averages in the US and see ~40 miles.

Then this this old chestnut, the scenario where someone has an EV, but forgot to charge one night (of course ...), and then needed to drive 500 miles at 3a because of some kind of emergency.

 

[quagmire]

The only issues I have with EV vehicles is the time that it takes to charge, and technology is working on that issue. The Range issue seems to be on par with an ICE vehicle.

Which is valid.

Though what gets me is people cite the road trip as the biggest deterrent of an EV. Yet they don't do road trips or if they do it's a once a year sort of deal. Other wise the charge time is a moot thing since it is charging at home. And yes if you can't charge at home, an EV is not for you right now. I am never one to convince people to buy an EV. I will answer their questions about them and then they can make the decision. But I do find some peoples anti-EV talk freaking ridiculous and showing they are closed minded. Then it turns into what I stated above, " I have to be right and I will use any argument to prove my point" as seen in the squabbling between AG and SM.

Though it depends on the kind of road trip you are doing. I am trying to tell my parents that when my moms Model Y comes in, it will be perfect for them to drive to my aunts place when they do. The car can make it there on a single charge and they can charge at their place( albeit slowly at 120V). Heck they always have to stop for 10 minutes at a rest place on the road for a bathroom break and the rest stops on the way all have superchargers. They can plug in for that 10 minute break and get at least 100 miles of range back easily. Now when they drive to my brothers, that is a 10 hour drive. I would not want to take an EV on that kind of road trip.

 

[DT]

Though it depends on the kind of road trip you are doing. I am trying to tell my parents that when my moms Model Y comes in, it will be perfect for them to drive to my aunts place when they do. The car can make it there on a single charge and they can charge at their place( albeit slowly at 120V). Heck they always have to stop for 10 minutes at a rest place on the road for a bathroom break and the rest stops on the way all have superchargers. They can plug in for that 10 minute break and get at least 100 miles of range back easily. Now when they drive to my brothers, that is a 10 hour drive. I would not want to take an EV on that kind of road trip.

One of the best "pre-sales" tools is A Better Route Planner. I did dozens of "what if ..." scenarios using it before we owned a Tesla, and now, for other people considering any BEV, and it's incredibly enlightening.

In fact, it's probably a good discussion topic on the car forums.

 

[SuperMatt]

I wonder what percentage of people could charge at home and haven’t made the leap to EV yet. Then to compare - what percentage of people just don’t have a way to charge at home.

When it comes to increasing EV adoption, I think infrastructure is critical. If gas stations were hard to find, ICE vehicles would be much less appealing.

 

[Yoused]

To me, the biggest issue revolves around the stacks of subsidies that go to the fossil fuel industry. Without all the giveaways, gasoline would cost between 4 and 10 times as much as it does, but, oh, we have to pamper those guys so that they can keep the country hooked on their product while they use their excess profits toward promotion of their product and climate change denialism.

If we treated BEV development the way we have been treating big petro, half the cars on the road would be electric by now and the buy-in would be nowhere near as brutal. The government should be seizing the oil industry, for its malfeasance at the very least, and using the income to shove the country toward more sustainable practices.

 

[AG_PhamD]

This is elitism. You would probably consider me low-income since you live in a fancy-pants area of Boston. So don’t tell me what low income people want or need. You are the one who is unbelievably out of touch with reality.

This post is right-wing talking points surrounded by walls of text trying desperately to justify them.

Nobody is asking to put chargers in areas where people don’t have cars. They are saying to put them where there is street parking only. STREET PARKING. As in, there are already cars parked there.

The argument about people who don’t have cars is a distraction that has zero to do with the discussion.

And to argue that we should have areas with no electricity in 21st-century America? Really?

And you call me out of touch…

“Low income” is actually a defined term, which varies slightly based on jurisdiction and context is generally xxx% (ie 150%) of the federal poverty level or xx% (ie 20%) of the median income level of the area. Generally this is around and below minimum wage for an area or alternatively those eligible for Medicaid and housing programs.

Just because I live in affluent area doesn’t mean I don’t know the difference between middle class, lower middle class, and low income. It’s not like I live in some gated off world. I associate with people of all socioeconomic classes, not to mention I work with a very diverse group of people, from those who have unfathomable amounts of wealth (enough to spend hundreds of thousands per year out of pocket on healthcare) to those on Medicaid and social security disability.

But regardless, you have to explain to me someone making $30k a year with a credit score under 600 affords an brand new car via purchasing, financing, or leasing.

My only point is it’s silly to build charging stations in areas that don’t have the market fundamentals to support them anytime soon. I believe there are better ways to spend money to achieve the ultimate goal. And the government has a long history of policies done under the guise of something universally beneficial (ie environmentalism) that do little to to meet ambition, instead lining the pockets of big corporations. Prime example: Cash for Clunkers.

In the case of BEVs, I think there is a complete lack of trust affordable, practical, and compelling vehicles. Until that happens getting EVs into low income households is going to be very difficult. Therefore building chargers in low income neighborhoods will be a poor use of funding- and that’s money that could be invested in better ways to promote EVs, including in these communities, or these communities in more fundamental ways. Like it’s great to have EV chargers for EV’s people don’t own, meanwhile they don’t have a grocery store to buy food at.

I’m not sure why some people assume that any critique of anything electric car related equals “hate”. I don’t “hate EVs”. Why would I care what powers your car on such an emotional level as hate? They are undoubtedly the future in personal transportation and I think the government should promote the evolution of this technology, so long as it’s practical. I will presumably one one day own one. And I think there are some very impressive models coming out. There is this emotional irrationality (tribalism, if you will) of needing to defend legitimate critiques of the EV industry that frankly I think is a disservice to the advancement of this market. Certainly there are people who make arguments based on vast misconception, but as an emerging technology there’s obviously going to be real issues.

Frankly, I think the Rivian is one of the most interesting and appealing cars to come to market in a very long time. And I say that as someone with no previous interest in ever owning a pickup truck. I wouldn’t mind owning a Porsche Taycan. I just couldn’t justify spending that much money on a car and their are practical limations of me owning an EV right now, though eventually that will change.

 

[SuperMatt]

Like it’s great to have EV chargers for EV’s people don’t own, meanwhile they don’t have a grocery store to buy food at.

This is an example of the false choice fallacy.

The biggest flaws I see in the overall argument:

1. The assumption that EVs will always be unaffordable. Most people, regardless of income, still need cars to get to work. You can already buy used EVs, and many more will be available in the future.
2. Infrastructure should wait until adoption goes up. - This is a chicken/egg problem. EV adoption cannot go up if people cannot charge. Tesla built their own proprietary charging network to get people to buy their cars. If we want everybody to go EV, then we need ubiquitous charging resources.

There’s nothing emotional about these arguments. EV adoption is a critical part of reducing carbon emissions, so anything that will speed it along is good for the climate and our species’ survival.

 

[SuperMatt]

Pete Buttigieg makes some good arguments about the importance of infrastructure and EVs.

Buttigieg said lower-income households stand to gain the most, if they can afford electric vehicles, because of fuel savings. People in rural and tribal areas would benefit because they burn more gas while driving longer distances, he said. But it’s those same areas where drivers might have “range anxiety” over whether they will make it to their next charge, he said, which makes them good candidates for chargers backed by federal incentives.
“Some places it’s already profitable to put in chargers. Some places it’s not. But we need to make sure that we have a full network, and that’s where policy can make all the difference,” Buttigieg said.

I have experienced myself that an EV can save you quite a bit of money; charging it is much cheaper than buying gas.

Also in the article, a warning against spending infrastructure funds to put chargers in busy areas where they will be immediately profitable.

Laura Schewel, who worked at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission on electric-vehicle policy before founding transportation analytics firm StreetLight Data, said federal funds should emphasize metrics such as income and air quality, not just the density of chargers along busy highways.
Done the wrong way, “subsidies can just accelerate the way things were going to go,” Schewel said, which would mean putting too much focus on busy locations used by early adopters.
Schewel said policymakers should broaden their sights beyond highways, emphasizing that consumer behavior for charging an electric vehicle is different from those at a gas station. The most convenient way for many people to charge is at home overnight, or at work, given the long hours cars sit unused.

But in some cities, “low-income people are going to be the ones who don’t have control over their home parking spot because they’re renters or they street park,” Schewel said, noting the importance of charging locations away from home.

If the goal is to get to 50% EVs by 2030, we need to build infrastructure now, ESPECIALLY in underserved areas.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/transportation/2021/12/29/electric-vehicle-charging-stations/

 

[mac_in_tosh]

If we treated BEV development the way we have been treating big petro, half the cars on the road would be electric by now and the buy-in would be nowhere near as brutal. The government should be seizing the oil industry, for its malfeasance at the very least, and using the income to shove the country toward more sustainable practices.

This is an old thread so I'm not sure if it's still being followed but...Some people claim that when you consider the mining of materials for batteries, the generation of electricity by fossil fuel plants, etc. the adoption of electric vehicles will not, on the whole, be all that beneficial to the environment, if at all. Just wondering what people here think about that as one always has to question the financial motivation someone might have for advocating a particular position.

 

[SuperMatt]

This is an old thread so I'm not sure if it's still being followed but...Some people claim that when you consider the mining of materials for batteries, the generation of electricity by fossil fuel plants, etc. the adoption of electric vehicles will not, on the whole, be all that beneficial to the environment, if at all. Just wondering what people here think about that as one always has to question the financial motivation someone might have for advocating a particular position.

Just to put one simple and basic fact out there: As the electric grid moves to more renewables, EVs will automatically use that cleaner energy. A gas or diesel vehicle will continue to burn oil.

Another basic fact: electric vehicles are FAR more efficient than gas-powered vehicles. Less than half of the fuel burned by a gas-powered vehicle actually makes the car go. The rest is wasted. EVs use about 3/4 of their energy to move the vehicle.

Where the Energy Goes: Electric Cars

EVs are 60% to 73% efficient, depending upon drive cycle (77% to 100% efficient if the energy recaptured from regenerative braking is counted).

fueleconomy.gov

I could go on about how batteries are effective for about 15 years and that most materials in them are recyclable…. But the point is, EVs are FAR better for the environment than gas-powered cars. It’s not really close.

 

[Citysnaps]

Just to put one simple and basic fact out there: As the electric grid moves to more renewables, EVs will automatically use that cleaner energy. A gas or diesel vehicle will continue to burn oil.

Another basic fact: electric vehicles are FAR more efficient than gas-powered vehicles. Less than half of the fuel burned by a gas-powered vehicle actually makes the car go. The rest is wasted. EVs use about 3/4 of their energy to move the vehicle.

Where the Energy Goes: Electric Cars

EVs are 60% to 73% efficient, depending upon drive cycle (77% to 100% efficient if the energy recaptured from regenerative braking is counted).

fueleconomy.gov

I could go on about how batteries are effective for about 15 years and that most materials in them are recyclable…. But the point is, EVs are FAR better for the environment than gas-powered cars. It’s not really close.

Also...battery technology continues to evolve. Both in greater energy density, less weight, and being made of more environmental friendly materials. Lyten's lithium-sulfur batteries come to mind.