Home » Electrify America Demands Customers Leave After Charging to 85% In Controversial Anti-Congestion Pilot Program

Electrify America Demands Customers Leave After Charging to 85% In Controversial Anti-Congestion Pilot Program

Electrify America 85 Ts3
ADVERTISEMENT

The worst thing about taking a long trip in an EV is getting held up when you need a charge. It sucks to roll up to a charger only to find someone else is already using it. Electrify America reckons it has found a way to fix this issue, but it could prove highly unpopular with customers.

The idea is simple. Electrify America will enforce a State of Charge limit of 85% at certain stations as part of a new pilot program. At these locations, customers will not be able to fully charge their EV to 100%. Instead, charging will halt at 85%,. The owner will then be given ten minutes grace to move their vehicle before they start racking up idle fees.

Vidframe Min Top
Vidframe Min Bottom

The pilot is being branded as a congestion reduction measure, targeted at the network’s busiest stations. All ten stations in the pilot are located in California, though the measure could easily be rolled out further in time.

Screenshot 2024 07 09 115255

On a basic level, the idea does make some sense. EV batteries typically charge the fastest in the 10% to 80% range. Indeed, this is why many automakers rate their vehicles fast charging performance on this metric. In this region, charging happens under a constant current (CC) regime until the individual cell voltage reaches the nominal level, usually around 4.2 volts each.

ADVERTISEMENT
Screenshot 2024 07 09 121003
A typical charging curve for a lithium-ion battery. Note how the charging current drops off rapidly as the cell’s capacity reaches the 80% level. via Ineltro

Beyond 80%, the charging process continues much more slowly under a constant voltage (CV) regime. The charging voltage is held at 4.2 volts per cell, while the current applied decreases gradually until the battery is completely filled. Charging speed is dependent on current, so that last 20% takes much longer as the current continually decreases.

Electrify America’s move isn’t unprecedented. Indeed, many EV owners have often considered charging to 80% as good manners when using crowded charge stations. Regardless, it’s already seen some pushback from aggrieved customers. Much of the criticism centers around the poor reliability of EA’s charger network. Many customers allege that the huge number of broken chargers is a bigger cause of congestion than customers choosing to charge to 100%.

For some customers, it won’t be a big deal. However, in some situations, not being able to charge to 100% can be really annoying. If you need every last drop of range to reach your next charging stop, getting cut off early could mess up your whole deal. This is a bigger deal in rural areas where congestion is less likely, of course, but it bears consideration when instituting charge limits that could surprise unwary travellers.

ADVERTISEMENT

This also, as Matt has pointed out before, might have implications for Uber/Lyft drivers. While there’s no explicit statement saying this is pointed at them, people leasing an EV with no intention to buy it (whether a livery driver or otherwise) are probably not as concerned about battery life. [Ed note: It’s true, when I see an Uber/Lyft license plate at an EA charger I just assume they’re going to 100% – MH]

For now, the program remains a pilot, with Electrify America noting it may roll out the measure to more chargers in future. It could help free up chargers in the short term, particularly in busy periods like national holidays. At the same time, artificial limits on charging are unlikely to make customers happier. They’d probably just prefer the provision of more working chargers instead.

Image credits: Electrify America, Ineltro datasheet

Share on facebook
Facebook
Share on whatsapp
WhatsApp
Share on twitter
Twitter
Share on linkedin
LinkedIn
Share on reddit
Reddit
Subscribe
Notify of
197 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
J Money
J Money
11 days ago

Man, the EV revolution really gets funnier every day.

Mister Win
Mister Win
11 days ago

Porsche really needs to build more of those E-Gas refineries like that one in Brazistol, carbon neutral fuels and hybrids could solve all of this!

Cheap Bastard
Cheap Bastard
11 days ago
Reply to  Mister Win

That I believe is not going to happen. Any carbon neutral liquid fuels like gasoline or kerosene produced are going to be needed by aviation, especially military aviation and they’re going to need oceans of it. Until that demand is sated there won’t be any left over for light ground transport. You’ll have to make do with ethanol.

Mister Win
Mister Win
5 days ago
Reply to  Cheap Bastard

Ethanol is cool, I’ll just hit up my moonshine plug for a few bad batches and ride for… Hours?

Defenestrator
Defenestrator
5 days ago
Reply to  Mister Win

Eh, that process is atrociously inefficient even with their improvements, though. I don’t think they’d find a lot of takers at $40/gallon.

Ppnw
Ppnw
11 days ago

Based on charge rates, this makes rational sense. But I don’t like it. EV ranges are only starting to get acceptable, this is yet another factor reducing your range.

The solution should be old fashioned capitalism. Charge by the minute if hogging past 85% is a concern. People will naturally leave around 80% because they won’t be getting their money’s worth given the charge rate. The people who really need the extra 15% will stay and pay.

TheFanciestCat
TheFanciestCat
11 days ago

They’re trying trying this in LA and SD but not Orange County because Orange County would Karen it up.

Will Leavitt
Will Leavitt
12 days ago

This is a non-issue for long distance travel. The quickest way to cover distance is “drive-fast, charge fast (and often)” — i.e. drive as fast as you dare (and is safe), run the battery down to a few percent, and charge up to ~60% or where ever the knee is in your car’s charge rate curve. EV enthusiasts in Germany used to have a EV rally where they would drive from one end of the country to another, mainly on the Autobahns, and all the winners used this technique.

This is also the default in the Tesla nav system– enter a destination far away, and it will suggest multiple short charging sessions and running the battery down instead of fewer, longer sessions. Of course, you need to amortize the time needed to get to the chargers, but if you can add charge at 500-1000mph, that makes up for driving half a mile off the highway to a charger at 45mph pretty quickly.

Pit-Smoked Clutch
Pit-Smoked Clutch
12 days ago

Get ready guys, cause this is gonna get a LOT worse before it gets better.

I’m sure the fact that the charger takes money in faster when the electricity is flowing faster didn’t discourage this decision, either.

SYT_Shadow
SYT_Shadow
12 days ago

Ah, the infinite joy of electric cars. They just keep getting better!

But just wait for the not too distant future, where your first X kwh are one price, and then to go beyond that you need to pay 2x, or 10x, all to protect our environment.
“sorry, you have consumed the government approved 400 miles for June. To go further, you need to pay multiples of the price for the first 400 miles.”

Marathag
Marathag
11 days ago
Reply to  SYT_Shadow

Big Brother knows best

Cheap Bastard
Cheap Bastard
5 days ago
Reply to  SYT_Shadow

Not so different from the xG/mo data plans offered by private industry then.

Cheap Bastard
Cheap Bastard
12 days ago

I don’t get why chargers only have the one cable. Why not have multiple cable chargers span several parking spots and charge cars on a first come, first served manner with text notifications to owners on the progress? That way someone can arrive, hook up and walk away potentially leaving the car charging all day with nobody blocked and that the charger will direct the power as needed, maybe even splitting it to trickle charge that last 15% if so desired. Or give discounts for slower charging.

Pit-Smoked Clutch
Pit-Smoked Clutch
12 days ago
Reply to  Cheap Bastard

It’s not like a duplex outlet. Each cable has to be individually modulated, so a charger with multiple cables coming out of it is really just multiple chargers in one housing. What is really needed to get to 100% adoption is a charger in every parking space. Good luck with that.

Cheap Bastard
Cheap Bastard
11 days ago

Oh I’m sure clever engineers can figure out how to move high voltage between multiple cables automatically without each line needing all the expensive expensive bits. Conceptually what I’m proposing is no different from moving the cable from one car to another except here there are multiple cables and it’s the plugs on the charger end being moved around via an automated breaker box.

Pit-Smoked Clutch
Pit-Smoked Clutch
11 days ago
Reply to  Cheap Bastard

Meaning you plug your car in, but it doesn’t start charging until the other plugged in cars in line finish? Sure you could do that, but everyone would hate it.

Also, one of the expensive bits in the charger is the copper in the cable itself.

Cheap Bastard
Cheap Bastard
11 days ago

It beats having to wait till the person on the charger gets around to unplugging though, especially if there’s already a line. Everyone gets to plug in and everyone gets charged up as quickly and as fairly as possible without having to wait on others to advance the que.

Bassracerx
Bassracerx
11 days ago

Or it could just reduce output to the other cars charging. But this is kind of silly because the real cost of these public chargers is real estate.

Bassracerx
Bassracerx
11 days ago

the real expense is leasing the real estate at these public locations.

Cheap Bastard
Cheap Bastard
11 days ago

Those cables are going to be needed anyway. The question is whether they are attached to many individual, single port chargers (expensive) or fewer multiple port switching chargers (cheaper).

Also if copper is too expensive aluminum might be used instead. That’s how the power gets there after all.

Radiant13
Radiant13
11 days ago
Reply to  Cheap Bastard

The (ChargePoint, not EA) ones at the hospital I used to work at have two cables and are set on the line separating parking spaces. You scan your phone and it unlocks both cables, then you pull one and plug in. It has separate displays on the screen for each cable to give status of that charger. Most the ChargePoint ones I have seen and used in other places are the same. The only exception is IKEA, where the station has one cable and is to the side of an end parking space. All of these are in Las Vegas, so I don’t know about other places. The hospital also has 4 tesla chargers with two cables each. All the chargers mentioned here are L2. I haven’t had to use L3 stations, so I can’t speak to those.

SpikeFiend
SpikeFiend
11 days ago

I think what he’s saying is one single charger with say 4 parking spots/cables that would output to a single cable at a time. So 4 cars park there, plug in, and go shopping and the charger fills each one in order of arrival. No one has to babysit their car to unplug/plug in when its their turn.

So if car A in spot 1 is full and plugged in (and the owner isn’t around), car B can park in spot 2 and still use the charger.

This would allow for more leeway in charging without actually having to put in more chargers/more power.

Defenestrator
Defenestrator
5 days ago
Reply to  Cheap Bastard

I think some of them do. IIRC the Chargepoint chargers are modular and can assign multiple converter modules to one cable for higher rates or split them across multiple. So something like 400KW across 3 cables with a max of 250KW per cable.

Dogisbadob
Dogisbadob
12 days ago

another reminder that EA is from VW. What do you expect?

They’re only doing EA because they were required to in the first place, and it shows.

Codfangler
Codfangler
12 days ago

“EV batteries typically charge the fastest in the 10% to 80% range.”

It looks to me like that means that a BEV with a 300 mile range could be said to have a practical range of 210 miles unless you are charging at home or at work or are willing to wait a long time at a public charger. Is this a reasonable conclusion?

At age 78, I probably have a reasonably short driving future ahead of me. I question whether or not charging infrastructure and speed will be ready for prime time in my lifetime, i.e., comparable to the time and effort required to refill an ICE vehicle’s fuel tank today.

Framed
Framed
12 days ago
Reply to  Codfangler

Many people are put off by EV’s because of the hassle of charging on the occasional road trip. Though this is true, you also save all the hassle of getting gas the rest of the time as long as you are able to charge at home.

Ranwhenparked
Ranwhenparked
12 days ago
Reply to  Framed

For some people, road trips aren’t occasional

Cheap Bastard
Cheap Bastard
11 days ago
Reply to  Ranwhenparked

So get a PHEV.

Ranwhenparked
Ranwhenparked
11 days ago
Reply to  Cheap Bastard

I have a hybrid that I use primarily for work (2000+ business miles a month), but it’s not a plug in hybrids, because it gets better fuel economy than a plug in would on long highway trips, which is what it’s mostly used for.

Neither of my other two cars are hybrids though, because they get driven less than 20,000 miles a year combined and, frankly, nobody makes a hybrid that I’d really care to drive on my “me” time when I’m not being compensated for the driving.

Cheap Bastard
Cheap Bastard
11 days ago
Reply to  Ranwhenparked

I hear the 2nd gen Volt is surprisingly fun.

86-GL
86-GL
12 days ago
Reply to  Codfangler

I’d say you’re on the money. It’s really only road trips where drivers should need to make the most of their entire capacity- as long as they have access to quick and convenient charging.

Personally, I think we are probably 5-10 years out from the point where charging infrastructure begins to resemble it’s eventual form. That said, regular improvements will continue to make the technology ‘good enough’ for new groups of drivers. Where anyone might decide to get on board depends on their specific needs, evidently the current situation is satisfactory for the current group of EV owners.

The decision by automakers to focus on Tesla NACS as a single charging standard is a big step forward, I think we will see some substantial progress in the charging scene in the next few years, a bit faster than what we have seen so far.

SYT_Shadow
SYT_Shadow
12 days ago
Reply to  Codfangler

There’s no need to worry too much. Before long, fueling an ICE will be heavily restricted and then EV cars will look ok in comparison.

Urban Runabout
Urban Runabout
12 days ago
Reply to  Codfangler

80% of 300 is 240 – Not 210.

Kinda like my ICE car has a 16 gallon tank, but will scream at me like sudden painful death if I get the car below 1 gallon…
…and if I drive too fast (or even worse, around town) with the AC on – the car will get 20-30% lower mileage than if I was cruising at 65-70 on the freeway.

What was the difference again?

Pit-Smoked Clutch
Pit-Smoked Clutch
11 days ago
Reply to  Urban Runabout

Unless you’re coasting into the station with your contactors open at 0%, you’re not getting 80% depth of discharge.

(80-10%)*300 = 210

The difference is that the efficiency penalty of your described behavior in an ICE costs you only money. Not money and time.

Urban Runabout
Urban Runabout
11 days ago

The difference is that the efficiency penalty of your described behavior in an ICE costs you only money. Not money and time.”

Oh?
Does it take zero time to drive over to a gas station and fill the tank w fuel nowadays?
You must tell me where these magical instant no-detour filling stations are.

Cheap Bastard
Cheap Bastard
11 days ago
Reply to  Urban Runabout

If you define “no-detour” as a right turn into a parking lot those filling stations are pretty much everywhere. Much more so than trying to find a working charger away from home.

The first convenient gas station may not be the cheapest though so it may be worth perusing GasBuddy to find the cheapest, most convenient one.

Last edited 11 days ago by Cheap Bastard
Pit-Smoked Clutch
Pit-Smoked Clutch
10 days ago
Reply to  Urban Runabout

Okay, “more money and less time”. Satisfied?

Last edited 10 days ago by Pit-Smoked Clutch
Uninformed Fucknugget
Uninformed Fucknugget
11 days ago
Reply to  Codfangler

“It looks to me like that means that a BEV with a 300 mile range could be said to have a practical range of 210 miles”

This is correct, but I can pull into my driveway with 5mi left in the “tank” and the next morning it is full and ready to go again.

Bassracerx
Bassracerx
11 days ago
Reply to  Codfangler

it gets slower and slower until you reach 100 percent. 80 percent would be 20-40 minutes to charge depending on the technology of the vehicle/charger. the last 20 percent could be anywhere from double to 40 percent more time depending on technology and charger capacity.

Defenestrator
Defenestrator
5 days ago
Reply to  Codfangler

I’d say anyone who can charge at home, at work, or at a place they stop at regularly (grocery store, restaurant, movie theater, etc) is in good shape. Anyone who has to go out of their way specifically to a fast charger for all of their charging is definitely going to be inconvenienced by driving an EV, though. Only a few minutes with something like an EV6, but something slower-charging like a Bolt would definitely be a pain.

Jalop Gold
Jalop Gold
12 days ago

I think this is fine in urban/level 3 charger dense areas. EA users are coming from all across the EV adopter spectrum, and the “fill ‘er up” mindset is hard to get rid of.
Last week I drove from South Carolina to the Jersey Shore for a family gathering. The only supercharger I went to 100% on was at a lunch stop (my daughter loves steak) where only 5 of the 12 chargers were used. I did have to wait once on the return journey as there is only 1 supercharger with 4 stalls in all of Delmarva. I was set to only charge to 60% and move along, but all the chargers freed up while I was charging and so I kept going to 90% since there was an open stall next to me. Being able to watch on the camera from the app is a huge help for this, as is the Tesla app showing how many cars are enroute to a charger.
I love long drives (10hr+), but can’t imagine trying any EV for that unless it can use the Supercharger network, and even that isn’t a carefree lock.

AlterId
AlterId
12 days ago
Reply to  Jalop Gold

I thought there was more than one Supercharger site on the Eastern Shore. I know there’s one in Exmore (I checked routes from here to Rehoboth Beach in case I got one) and one in Ocean City that would have been out of your way, but I’d think there would be something in Salisbury and Dover as well.

Jalop Gold
Jalop Gold
11 days ago
Reply to  AlterId

I meant Exmore. You are correct all those exist, I was meaning more South of Rt 50 towards the Bay Bridge Tunnel.

Don Mynack
Don Mynack
12 days ago

LOL.

Goffo Sprezzatura
Goffo Sprezzatura
12 days ago

Huh…this sounds like a decision made by a committee. Why not just charge x3 more for any charging after 85%?

Douglas C Perrenoud
Douglas C Perrenoud
12 days ago

Well, I’m gonna need a software update as my Ioniq 5 only lets me set my charge limits every 10%!

Frankencamry
Frankencamry
12 days ago

If the charger shuts off at 85%, it doesn’t matter if your car works in 10% increments.

Detroit Lightning
Detroit Lightning
12 days ago

I agree that there are better ways to do something like this – there should be an override of some sort, and incentives to stop at 80 or 85.

That said, charging to 100% is excruciating and is totally a problem. I get that sometimes it has to be done, but in my experience it’s typically uber drivers or people using free charging to fill up to 100.

Overall it’s just one of many problems:

-extremely slow charging past 80%
-broken chargers
-slow charging ex’s like bolt’s
-not enough chargers

JaredTheGeek
JaredTheGeek
12 days ago

The people that charge to 100% on EA are the ones with free charging.

BolognaBurrito
BolognaBurrito
12 days ago

Seems like a better idea would to simply start idle charges immediately upon reaching 100%, and have those idle charges be relatively expensive.

Combine this with a consumption charge (per kWh) as well as a reasonable time charge (per minute). So, while you car is really zipping along (20%-80%) you are paying a high kWh but low time charge and zero idle charge. As it goes from 80% to 100% you are paying a relatively small consumption charge and more time charge. Then post 100% you’d be paying a hefty idle charge.

So, something like a fixed $0.25 per kWh, plus $0.10 (no idea if that’s reasonable) per minute of occupancy during charge. Once 100% something like $1.00 per minute for idle occupancy.

Last edited 12 days ago by BolognaBurrito
Cryptoenologist
Cryptoenologist
12 days ago
Reply to  BolognaBurrito

At least in my area, idling at DCFC is a non-issue. Almost everyone is just sitting there in their cars waiting to leave at the first moment possible. A good solution, rather than this hard cap would be to have the time fee you suggested, but only after the first 30 minutes of charging. So if you really need the extra juice you can get it, but it discourages most people from doing it most of the time.

Janeane Garafolo
Janeane Garafolo
12 days ago

Welp, for all those people that sunk huge coin into EV mandates…this has got to sting a bit.

Sabotaging one of the largest objections to ownership is really daft. EA is responding to all the salient points of “Yeah, but public charging is too big of a pain. For whatever the rewards of going electric you claim are beneficial, please convince me that it isn’t a pain…”, by EA telling all those with concerns, “Nah. We think actively making it worse is a better idea.”

V10omous
V10omous
12 days ago

The people who support and implemented EV mandates fly and/or are driven everywhere they go. The objections of normal people are non-sensical to them.

BolognaBurrito
BolognaBurrito
12 days ago
Reply to  V10omous

Or I think most normal people realize that using a public EV charger is (ideally) rarely used in comparison to at-home charging. Plus, actual EV mandates are still a while away. You can still buy plenty of ICE vehicles.

V10omous
V10omous
12 days ago
Reply to  BolognaBurrito

Right, but for local driving the 85% limit isn’t really important anyways. Home or public charging are both OK.

The edge case is where it matters (road trip) and that experience is now getting worse. The mandates aren’t here yet but every day they get closer and EVs still have short range and poor charging infrastructure.

BolognaBurrito
BolognaBurrito
12 days ago
Reply to  V10omous

If you are suggesting the experience is getting worse, I think you need to look big picture. Most brands are shifting over to NACS and thus the SuperCharging network will soon become available. That alone (being an option for new NACS users, plus offloading a bunch of demand from Electrify America) has to count for something. Does that do more than make up for this 85% endueced negative? I’m not sure. But I don’t think this current thing will be more than a blip in time.

V10omous
V10omous
12 days ago
Reply to  BolognaBurrito

I hope you’re right.

Scoutdude
Scoutdude
12 days ago
Reply to  V10omous

Yes but they are doing this at in city chargers where there are a high density of locations. So many of those using it are going to be those who don’t have access to charge at home and relatively few will be those on a road trip. Even if you are on a road trip charging past 80% is something that you will only want to do when it is necessary to reach the next charger with a little buffer.

JaredTheGeek
JaredTheGeek
12 days ago
Reply to  V10omous

I have driven roadtrips that are thousands of miles and never charged above 80% on them because it takes too long.

Beasy Mist
Beasy Mist
12 days ago
Reply to  BolognaBurrito

Don’t let facts get in the way of a good outrage session.

PlugInPA
PlugInPA
12 days ago
Reply to  Beasy Mist

Like any discussion on EVs, this has a bunch of people who won’t own them for cultural reasons yelling about how they don’t work while a bunch of us that do own them talk about real life.

BolognaBurrito
BolognaBurrito
12 days ago
Reply to  PlugInPA

The most vocal against EVs are people that haven’t even used them.

I don’t have one, but I recognize that if I were to swap my current car out for one it would be somewhat seamless. I also recognize that I’m a bit privileged because I have a home with a garage and I’m capable of installing my own L2 charger at home. But even then, the vast majority of my charging wouldn’t be on public chargers. I say this as someone that typically puts ~18,000 miles annually on their car.

Beasy Mist
Beasy Mist
12 days ago
Reply to  PlugInPA

I won’t pretend they’re ideal for every use case scenario. But many (most?) households have two cars and one of them being an EV makes a lot of sense. I have a Bolt and it has the DCFC option but guess what – it sucks as a road trip car so I take the other car. I visited a DCFC station once so far – to make sure the function worked on the used car I just bought. Haven’t used it since.

Janeane Garafolo
Janeane Garafolo
12 days ago
Reply to  Beasy Mist

According to Forbes, roughly 59% of households had two or more cars as of 2022.

So, many households? Sure. Most households? No.

https://www.forbes.com/advisor/car-insurance/car-ownership-statistics/

PlugInPA
PlugInPA
12 days ago

59% is definitely “most”.

A Nonymous
A Nonymous
12 days ago
Reply to  PlugInPA

I was thinking the same thing.

Janeane Garafolo
Janeane Garafolo
12 days ago
Reply to  PlugInPA

It’s barely more than half. lol.

Also, go ahead and consider the amount of families that are either on public assistance (roughly 21 million) and those that live in trailer parks (roughly 9.5 million) and there you have about 10% of the adult population in the US.

Not exactly the demographics that owning an EV “makes sense” for.

PlugInPA
PlugInPA
12 days ago

Yes if we had decent public transit in this country, those people wouldn’t have to buy a car at all.

Janeane Garafolo
Janeane Garafolo
12 days ago
Reply to  PlugInPA

Why do you insist on switching topics?

Last edited 12 days ago by Janeane Garafolo
PlugInPA
PlugInPA
12 days ago

We’re discussing transportation policy, right?

Janeane Garafolo
Janeane Garafolo
12 days ago
Reply to  PlugInPA

I have been discussing the hyper-specific topic of private EV ownership and charging infrastructure. As were you at some point.

For some reason, you want to keep shoehorning trains and buses and whatever else is included in public transportation, as part of it.

You are trying to put pineapple on a pizza, dude.

PlugInPA
PlugInPA
12 days ago

You brought up the “but what about poor people” part. I said there’s a better way to meet their needs. Seems like a normal conversation to me.

Max Poodling
Max Poodling
12 days ago

What? Those are exactly the demographics that owning an EV makes sense for. Those are the people that don’t take long trips – they can’t afford vacations. And they definitely still have cars.

Look at Asia and Europe – low range city cars that cost way less are absolutely an option. And, as PIP said, we can also ameliorate this issue with better public transport. This conversation isn’t happening in a vacuum.

Janeane Garafolo
Janeane Garafolo
12 days ago
Reply to  Max Poodling

Ha! That 10% are supposed to have $50k burning a hole in their pockets?

PlugInPA
PlugInPA
12 days ago

Catch up to 2024 dude, lightly used EVs are cheap.

Janeane Garafolo
Janeane Garafolo
12 days ago
Reply to  PlugInPA

Your version of cheap isn’t cheap to those on housing vouchers.

PlugInPA
PlugInPA
12 days ago

No car is, that’s my point.

Cheap Bastard
Cheap Bastard
12 days ago

How cheap does it need to be?

Max Poodling
Max Poodling
12 days ago

Cheap EVs are not $50k, new EVs are. That demo does not buy new cars, they buy used cars.

The average used EV is now less expensive than an ICE car, and that price continues to drop as EVs are more commoditized. You may recall this happening with your smart phone.

At best, you are comparing a pineapple to a pizza. At worst, you’re being disingenuous just to win a point on an internet comment board.

JumboG
JumboG
12 days ago
Reply to  PlugInPA

Slightly more than 1/2 is not most. Most is more than somewhere around 75% in my book, and I just read a study that many people think it’s over 80%.

Cheap Bastard
Cheap Bastard
12 days ago
Reply to  JumboG

“Most” is by definition simply the largest portion of the options available:

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/us/dictionary/english/most

So yeah, given two options > 50% is definitely “most”.

V10omous
V10omous
12 days ago
Reply to  PlugInPA

Or perhaps they are good faith objections glossed over by those who assume what works for them works for everyone?

I’ve never wavered in my requirements for what an EV be capable of before buying one, and I don’t ask for any more of them than I ask of my gas cars or trucks.

PlugInPA
PlugInPA
12 days ago
Reply to  V10omous

There are absolutely good reasons why somebody wouldn’t transition to an EV today. Those aren’t most of the reasons we hear in these conversations.

Anyways, the point of EVs is that they are a fairly minor inconvenience for most people that can substantially reduce CO2 emissions, which are starting to cause enormous inconvenience for billions of people.

V10omous
V10omous
12 days ago
Reply to  PlugInPA

I’m curious which of the reasons mentioned in this conversation (low range, long recharging time, unreliable and spotty chargers, now with the added bonus of limiting you charging) or others I’ve mentioned before (inability to tow, range loss in cold weather, high upfront cost) don’t meet your approval as reasonable objections to a policy that will as written, prevent people from buying any alternative besides a limited number of PHEVs in a decade’s time.

Max Poodling
Max Poodling
12 days ago
Reply to  V10omous

Wait, what? You’re comparing 2024 tech and infrastructure to an imagined 2034 version of both, and your point is… wait, what?

PlugInPA
PlugInPA
12 days ago
Reply to  V10omous

They are reasonable concerns. How many feet of sea level rise are they worth?

V10omous
V10omous
12 days ago
Reply to  PlugInPA

I’m sorry, I will not be shamed into thinking the relatively tiny amount of emissions from my vehicles (or for that matter every light vehicle in the US) makes a drop of difference while China builds new coal plants.

US emissions are 13% of the world’s total.

Transportation as a whole is 28% of the US total.

Light vehicles (ie not semis or heavy trucks) are 57% of that.

US light vehicle total: 2% of world emissions.

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions#transportation

Even switching every single one of those to electrics tomorrow would save perhaps 1% of CO2, because the electricity is not all from clean sources.

We are talking about upending the transportation sector over a pittance. There are approximately zero feet of sea level rise attributable to switching our fleet to EVs. There are better targets that compromise people’s lives far less.

PlugInPA
PlugInPA
12 days ago
Reply to  V10omous

Switching to EVs is definitely not sufficient to reduce global warming, but it is necessary. And it’s only logical for richer countries to go first and to set targets first.

Cheap Bastard
Cheap Bastard
11 days ago
Reply to  V10omous

“I’m sorry, I will not be shamed into thinking the relatively tiny amount of emissions from my vehicles (or for that matter every light vehicle in the US) makes a drop of difference while China builds new coal plants.”

Maybe you should:

“China is set to set to significantly overachieve on its 2030 climate targets despite boosting coal use.”

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/06/china-emissions-global-warming-climate-change-2030/

Cheap Bastard
Cheap Bastard
11 days ago
Reply to  PlugInPA

Worried about sea levels rising? Just get an electric boat instead.

Problem solved.

BolognaBurrito
BolognaBurrito
12 days ago
Reply to  V10omous

To be fair:

1) Maybe your requirements aren’t reflective of the majority of American buyers

2) Having the same requirements for electric and ICE probably isn’t good. I mean, when we switched from candles to (eventually) electric lightbulbs, some people probably had the same requirements. At the time, someone was probably out there bemoaning that you couldn’t carry a lightbulb in your pocket and turn it on with a match when necessary. Same thing with the switch from horses to cars; someone was upset than a Model T couldn’t drive through a craig as severe as a horse could and didn’t run off of hay and water. The idea that because you can do X with a gas car and thus you should be able to do exactly X with an electric one is largely a farce and not reflected in the vast majority of buyers actual use cases.

I’m not suggesting that there aren’t valid reasons why you should want to drive 400 miles on a charge and be able to refill in under 5 minutes like you can currently do in a gas car, but that’s certainly not the majority of situations for needing to be able to do that.

V10omous
V10omous
12 days ago
Reply to  BolognaBurrito

The difference of course was that horses and candles were not banned. If EVs are a better solution, there should be no need to ban their alternatives.

BolognaBurrito
BolognaBurrito
12 days ago
Reply to  V10omous

But ICEs aren’t banned right now. You are complaining about the current status and trying to apply that to a future time.

Plus, time will tell if the bans actual stand at their proposed dates.

Anoos
Anoos
12 days ago
Reply to  BolognaBurrito

No emissions-related policies are ever enacted fully or on time.

Anoos
Anoos
12 days ago
Reply to  V10omous

Well, kind of.

Good luck finding a place to keep a horse in most major cities, and horse traffic is not allowed on many roadways.

For lighting homes with open flames, I’m sure the insurance industry has policies that snuff (hehe) that out.

JumboG
JumboG
12 days ago
Reply to  Anoos

Many cities do require electricity for a home to be occupied.

Max Poodling
Max Poodling
12 days ago
Reply to  V10omous

I don’t think they said that at all. I see no glossing over anything, but I do see nuance. Some of it has already been explained in other answers to this comment. You’re seeing something that isn’t there and then assuming.

To be clear, since we seem to be doing a lot of assuming here – did I just read that you expect a paradigm shift in transportation technology to at least equal the utility of the current technology in all facets? Do you do that with all technology? Because that’s a great recipe for constant disappointment considering, ya know, that non-linear progress exists and will continue.

Compromises will be made; that’s how it works. Expecting perfection out of an imperfect system is madness. So is sticking your head in the sand. The world will not come to you, no matter how hard you type. And if you’re one of those, “member when the world was so much better in the past?” people then I’m not sure any of this is worth debating.

V10omous
V10omous
12 days ago
Reply to  Max Poodling

I expect when a working solution is banned by the government that its replacement is at least equal in all respects.

Most technology is allowed to develop without the heavy hand of bans. My objections to EVs would shrivel in an instant if I wasn’t going to be forced to buy one before they were ready.

PlugInPA
PlugInPA
12 days ago
Reply to  V10omous

Great, because you won’t be.

V10omous
V10omous
12 days ago
Reply to  PlugInPA

Well the trend the last decade has not been great. Same chemistry, same recharge times, minimal increases in range mostly driven by large battery packs. Cost down, yes, but a 2012 Model S had longer range than many new EVs today.

I’m pleased you’re so optimistic the next decade will be better because I haven’t seen the evidence.

PlugInPA
PlugInPA
12 days ago
Reply to  V10omous

Same chemistry, same recharge times, minimal increases in range mostly driven by large battery packs. Cost down, yes, but a 2012 Model S had longer range than many new EVs today.”

None of this is true except arguably the chemistry part. Recharge times have gotten way better, and there are many cost-effective options with over 250 miles of range.

V10omous
V10omous
12 days ago
Reply to  PlugInPA

The median range for a new EV is still something like 270 miles. There are very few over 320 or so, and most of those are very expensive. Gradual improvement, but nothing like the exponential promises, and nothing hinting at the idea that things will be greatly better 10 years from now.

Anoos
Anoos
12 days ago
Reply to  V10omous

Probably not. That’s going to be in-line with the range offered by a full tank of fuel in an ICE passenger vehicle.

I wouldn’t be surprised if ~300 mile range is a design goal they stick with, reducing weight instead of adding range if new battery tech allows.

Max Poodling
Max Poodling
12 days ago
Reply to  V10omous

Wow, you have really high expectations for government and society as a whole. That’s admirable, but personally I find it a bit unrealistic and it would lead me to being constantly disappointed in pretty much everything. Sometimes you just need to push the bird out of the nest, ya know?

It looks like you’ve really decided that ‘all this’ won’t be perfectly ready when these laws come in to effect. And you’re probably right – it will suck in some ways and be quite awesome in others. But we will figure it out one way or another, and progress will be made. That’s quite literally the story of human history.

V10omous
V10omous
12 days ago
Reply to  Max Poodling

My expectations are limited to the idea that the government shouldn’t generally be in the business of banning things.

If they do, it should be for both good reason, and with ready alternatives available that don’t compromise the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of the citizenry.

Max Poodling
Max Poodling
12 days ago
Reply to  V10omous

Yeah but that that’s exactly what the various governments are trying to do here. It’s okay to adjust a little so others can have some of that happiness you’re talking about. You really want all new laws to have zero negative effect on you, no matter what? That’s your standard? I hope you live in Montana.

I think we disagree on the value of human life at large, or at least the value of people you don’t know’s lives, and the role of government in maintaining that value. Best of luck with all of that, but to me that’s not a decent way to think about people.

Lockleaf
Lockleaf
12 days ago
Reply to  Max Poodling

His earlier argument was that even being completely draconian about switching to EVs WON’T have any significant impact on human life. 1% of total global emissions reduction if everyone in the US switched today.

But the impact of that switch on all of those human lives in the US would be massive. He’s arguing the cost is too high for the net benefit. According to the data he referenced, the net benefit is a rounding error.

Lets not descend in to what reads like a personal attack. Your response here reads like “Its really too bad I’m better than you”, though that may not have been your intent.

Last edited 12 days ago by Lockleaf
Max Poodling
Max Poodling
12 days ago
Reply to  Lockleaf

Yup, I got their argument. Thanks for summarizing.

Cheap Bastard
Cheap Bastard
5 days ago
Reply to  V10omous

There are limits.

For example I think we can all agree pedophilia is banned for good reason so what “ready alternative that don’t compromise the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of the citizenry” might be made available for pedophiles whom are also part of the citizenry?

Pretty sure whatever it is it won’t be acceptable to pedophiles or to anyone else. So there is one example of a VERY rigorous ban that exists with no alternative whatsoever.

That’s an extreme example and there are many others from private ownership of WMDs to owning a full sized horse in a high rise apartment to straight piped, emissions gutted exhausts (really there is no substitute). Lots of things need to be banned regardless of whether any ready alternative that don’t compromise the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of the citizenry exists.

Cheap Bastard
Cheap Bastard
12 days ago
Reply to  V10omous

And that’s where PHEVs come in.

Cheap Bastard
Cheap Bastard
11 days ago
Reply to  PlugInPA

I don’t own an EV despite having a garage with an unused L2 dryer port in large part because charging it, even at home overnight would cost me as much as filling an equivalent car with gas and a whole lot more should I need to charge it during peak hours.

In my area the EV math just dosen’t work out.

Last edited 11 days ago by Cheap Bastard
Collegiate Autodidact
Collegiate Autodidact
12 days ago
Reply to  V10omous

Ah, yeah, the good ol’ out-of-touch politician trope…

V10omous
V10omous
12 days ago

When was the last time you think any of them took a road trip?

Collegiate Autodidact
Collegiate Autodidact
12 days ago
Reply to  V10omous

Eh, if we go by that metric, then no high-level politicians would be allowed to make policy because virtually no high-level politicians live *regular* lives like the rest of us. We elect them with the expectation that they make policy based on what the people want and what benefits society at large. Sure, it’s not always perfect but it’s what we have. And the majority of the problems with EVs & EV infrastructure actually stems from corporate incompetence (such as multiple broken chargers at multiple charging stations) and corporate malfeasance (such as virtually anything Elon Musk, the face of Tesla, does.)

Janeane Garafolo
Janeane Garafolo
12 days ago

Did you just cite Tesla as an example of corporate malfeasance, and by extension of thought, the “problem” with EV adoption?

Umm…ok.

V10omous
V10omous
12 days ago

I actually do think politicians should live more of a normal life before taking away something that 99% of Americans have relied on for a century or more.

Would the majority of citizens in those states with EV mandates have voted for a referendum banning ICE vehicles? I suppose there’s no way to say for sure, but opinion polling generally doesn’t support the idea.

https://newjerseyglobe.com/governor/poll-n-j-voters-dont-approve-of-electric-car-mandate/

https://highlandcountypress.com/index.php/news/poll-show-7-states-oppose-electric-vehicle-mandates#:~:text=The%20national%20polling%20shows%2060,Republicans%2C%20it%20is%2087%25.

https://www.michiganfarmnews.com/poll-consumers-aren-t-buying-government-mandates-for-electric-vehicles

The idea that Elon Musk’s “malfeasance”, whatever that means, is responsible for EVs that have 200-300 mile ranges and hour long recharge times is a bit silly. In fact, his company puts forth probably the best efforts in that regard (but still woefully insufficient).

Manwich Sandwich
Manwich Sandwich
12 days ago
Reply to  V10omous

I actually do think politicians should live more of a normal life”

That’s not really possible these days due to all the idiots making threats against them, attempted assaults and actual assaults.
Here’s an example local to me:
https://www.pelhamtoday.ca/local-news/mp-not-seeking-re-election-due-to-abuse-threats-8740007#google_vignette

And I’m pretty sure it’s at least as bad or worse throughout the USA.

So because of abusive idiots in the general public, politicians these days have to have a security detail. And that alone means they in no way can live “like us normal folk”.

If some of us “normal folk” weren’t abusive, disrespectful jackasses, then it would be possible.

But that’s not reality.

As for people who “don’t approve” of the electric car mandate, that is just a poll that reveals the number of people who are uninformed idiots. They are mostly the people who haven’t done any real research as to why the EV mandates exist. And I say mostly because there are also some who are just selfish assholes who don’t give a shit about anyone but themselves.

V10omous
V10omous
12 days ago

Ah yes, the “anyone who disagrees with me is an idiot” strategy.

Brilliantly conceived to win hearts and minds.

There couldn’t possibly be any objections to the mandates on rational grounds, only selfishness or ignorance.

The government doing things over the objections of the citizenship is not enlightened governance just because you happen to agree in this particular case. If the other party was making unpopular laws (as they tend to do sometimes), you’d be first in line screaming about how unfair it was.

Last edited 12 days ago by V10omous
Janeane Garafolo
Janeane Garafolo
12 days ago
Reply to  V10omous

It’s at this exact point in the conversation when rationality has moved on to drier ground.

Manwich Sandwich
Manwich Sandwich
12 days ago
Reply to  V10omous

Ah yes, the “anyone who disagrees with me is an idiot” strategy.”

If you don’t understand by this point WHY we have the BEV mandates, then yes, you are an idiot.

It has nothing to do with whether you disagree with me or not.

You can disagree with me all you want… but I’m gonna call it as I see it.

And if you have an issue, then I suggest you grab a tissue.

V10omous
V10omous
12 days ago

LMAO. I usually read this kind of reply from MAGA folks, but it’s always nice to see a diversity of viewpoints represented with grade-school quality arguments.

Manwich Sandwich
Manwich Sandwich
12 days ago
Reply to  V10omous

You know what is also a MAGA type of thing? Saying idiotic things that are flat out lies and bullshit like “I actually do think politicians should live more of a normal life before taking away something that 99% of Americans have relied on for a century or more.”

I already covered WHY politicians can’t live a “normal life”

And the other half of what you said about “taking away something” is also bullshit.

Nobody is taking away existing ICE vehicles. Nobody is taking away the ability to fuel them up or use them.

But when it comes to new vehicle sales, those new vehicles have to meet new standards.

Hell let’s take your idiotic statement a step further… Americans also relied on lead for a variety of things… like an additive in paint, an additive in fuel and a bunch of other things. Shall we bring lead back just because “Americans have relied on it for a century or more”?

And maybe we should do the same thing for Asbestos, eh?

V10omous
V10omous
12 days ago

Lead paint and asbestos were clear and immediate threats to life and health and still were not banned until suitable alternatives were widely available.

CO2 from cars is a drop in the bucket of a global problem that EVs don’t come close to solving, and yet you can’t wait to put everyone into one.

It doesn’t affect your life negatively to force changes on mine, so you’re all for it. Again, I strongly suspect you would feel differently if things went the other way.

Manwich Sandwich
Manwich Sandwich
12 days ago
Reply to  V10omous

CO2 from cars is a drop in the bucket”

That’s a lie.


V10omous
V10omous
12 days ago

Prove it. I have data upthread, where is yours?

Manwich Sandwich
Manwich Sandwich
12 days ago
Reply to  V10omous

“Prove it”

It has been proven multiple times over the past several decades… but here is some info again which I’m sure you either won’t read or will put effort into NOT understanding

“​Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from transportation account for about 28 percent of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions, making it the largest contributor of U.S. GHG emissions.”

https://www.epa.gov/transportation-air-pollution-and-climate-change/carbon-pollution-transportation

 I have data upthread:”
You thinking that opinion polls qualify as actual data related to CO2 emissions is nothing less than idiotic.

V10omous
V10omous
12 days ago

Since your reading skills seem to be as poor as your reasoning, let me copy and paste it for you:

US emissions are 13% of the world’s total.

Transportation as a whole is 28% of the US total.

Light vehicles (ie not semis or heavy trucks) are 57% of that.

US light vehicle total: 2% of world emissions.

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions#transportation

Even switching every single one of those to electrics tomorrow would save perhaps 1% of CO2, because the electricity is not all from clean sources.

A pittance. And that is every single car, truck, and SUV.

Imagine thinking you’re proving some point by calling me an idiot while presenting the *same data from the same source* that I already have, as if it’s some novel argument.

Last edited 12 days ago by V10omous
Manwich Sandwich
Manwich Sandwich
12 days ago
Reply to  V10omous

US light vehicle total: 2% of world emissions.”

Ah more bullshit.

So you’re taking US vehicle emissions and comparing them to world total emissions… which is an idiotic apples vs oranges comparison.

And you’re implying no other country in the world is doing something about emissions… which is also idiotic bullshit.

It’s not a pittance regardless of your efforts to try and twist the data in a lame and idiotic attempt to make it look that way.

V10omous
V10omous
12 days ago

Buddy, the numbers are what they are.

Every car, light truck, and SUV in the US combined puts out 2% of global emissions.

Taking every tailpipe emission to zero from those vehicles would be a rounding error in total global emissions. The atmosphere doesn’t care if the US emits nothing while China takes up our slack. But a bunch of drivers really will be hurt by mandates that affect their lives greatly while doing virtually nothing to affect sea level rise or temperatures.

Manwich Sandwich
Manwich Sandwich
12 days ago
Reply to  V10omous

Buddy, the numbers are what they are.”

Yes… and you’re taking numbers from different places to make an apples vs oranges comparison to make something look small when it actually isn’t.

 The atmosphere doesn’t care if the US emits nothing while China takes up our slack”

Funny you should mention that because given China’s higher rate of BEV adoption, on a per capita basis, it’s more like the other way around… in that China is emitting less per capita while the US, with it’s love for oversized trucks, is taking up the slack from China and everyone else.

V10omous
V10omous
12 days ago

Does the ice in Greenland melt less if you tell it the emissions are per capita?

Lockleaf
Lockleaf
12 days ago

Stating the numbers are “from different places” seems disingenuous. USA emissions are part of global emissions. So its more of arguing that fixing one small segment of an orange won’t significantly impact the total orange.

Per Capita vs per country seems like an apples and oranges argument though. Per country, Climate Action Tracker rates China as Highly Insufficient in their climate policies, expecting their GHG emissions to climb for another year, then remain at that level until at least 2030. The China level of GHG is more than double that of the US.

US policies (yes, that does include BEVs) currently have us trending down another 25%+ by 2030.

Per Capita, yes, the US is the greatest per capita emitter of personal transportation emissions. But hey, modern day per capita slave labor in the US in the auto industry is WAY lower than is believed to be true in China, so even with their way better emissions per capita, there is a cost to human lives.

China EVs would help switch the US off gasoline faster for sure. But at what cost to human lives? So which cost is superior? I don’t have that answer. I don’t believe any of us actually do. We just have opinions on the answer.

Manwich Sandwich
Manwich Sandwich
12 days ago
Reply to  Lockleaf

Per Capita vs per country seems like an apples and oranges argument though”

The point is, there are many on the anti-BEV crowd who try to use the “well what about china” whataboutism as a lame excuse for doing nothing in their own back yard.

And my response to that is “Actually China is doing a lot.”

That’s the point.

China is NOT an excuse to do nothing in your own back yard.

Plus, they are the leader in stuff like BEVs, solar cells and other green tech. So the insinuation that countries like the USA are ‘doing all the work’ while China ‘does nothing’ is a false narrative.

It’s complete bullshit.

And China may have had higher overall emissions as a function of a much higher population, but on a per capita basis, they are doing quite well and it’s the USA that is the serious laggard.

So yeah… USA emissions are part of global emissions. And on a per-capita basis, the USA is NOT pulling it’s own weight.

And global emissions are an issue where EVERYONE needs to pull their fair share of the burden.

And that’s the point.

Lockleaf
Lockleaf
12 days ago

I agree with everything you say here to some extent. I think my disagreement on this goes to two points.

1) None of V10omous arguments, have I felt, were “we should do nothing”, but I do feel that is what your argument here is pointed against.

2) There is difference between encouraged options and actual bans by government. v10omous stands in favor of the options idea, allowing each of us to best choose what fits our needs, desires, and morals. I haven’t seen him argue “NO EVs”. I have only seen him argue “No ICE bans”.

Current EPA policies for the next few years arguably allow for a variety of options. However, a 100% Zero emissions rule is effectively a combustion ban. There are a variety of states and countries who have that set as a requirement by a specific date.

Everyone should pull their weight as best they can. I argue that bans are NOT best.

NoiseVibrationHastiness
NoiseVibrationHastiness
12 days ago
Reply to  V10omous

Slow day at work? Gimme a minute I gotta get more snacks from the vending machine.

Say we focused on US emissions only. This is something I can see as important for localized clean air and health reasons (California’s unique topography comes to mind).

If all ICE vehicles were BEV, this would mean a ~16% reduction in US emissions? This seems somewhat significant. I would frame it as ‘yea, we can’t fix the world but we can make US lives better’.

V10omous
V10omous
12 days ago

That sounds nice, but of course the atmosphere doesn’t care where the emissions come from (CO2 wise that is, smog and such in SoCal is a thing but as I understand it, greatly improved already).

China’s emissions are still rising, while the US peaked in 2005 and emits less CO2 now than it did in 1990.

That isn’t to say nothing more needs done, but as I’ve repeatedly stressed in this comment section, there are better and more effective ways than heavy handed EV mandates.

Manwich Sandwich
Manwich Sandwich
12 days ago
Reply to  V10omous

while the US peaked in 2005 and emits less CO2 now than it did in 1990.”

And I have news for you… the bulk of that emissions reduction was from the power generation industry.

https://rhg.com/research/us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-2023/

Essentially mothballing all the old coal plants and having a big increase in solar and wind is having a positive impact.

Look at this chart
https://rhg.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Figure-2.png

In essence, there is a lot more than needs to be done… and getting transportation part of the emissions picture is one key piece of the puzzle.

And the way to achieve that?

BEV mandates as well as plug-in hybrids with some decent EV range.

V10omous
V10omous
12 days ago

Amazing how such great success was achieved without banning coal.

Some well placed subsidies and incentives managed to tip the cost balance such that utilities made investments into renewables themselves and coal plants became uncompetitive due to mostly market forces.

I wonder if we might take any lessons from that in other sectors???

Manwich Sandwich
Manwich Sandwich
12 days ago
Reply to  V10omous

Amazing how such great success was achieved without banning coal.”

Actually, emissions regulations in the 1970s effectively did ban new coal power plants and simply grandfathered in existing plants.

And that exact thing is being done with vehicles/transportation… current ICE vehicles can continued to be operated (as they are “grandfathered in”) but anything new needs to meet higher standards.

It should also be noted that future emissions regs will require CO2 emissions capture from power plants… which is likely to kill off the remaining coal plants and start putting a dent in methane-burning “natural gas” plants.

Lockleaf
Lockleaf
12 days ago

The history of coal usage in the US is not quite so simple as your argument makes it sound. The median startup date for factories is the mid-60s, demonstrating just how many coal plants were built AFTER the clean air act of 1970. In fact, the years with the highest numbers of initial startup coal energy production both took place AFTER 1970.

See https://siepr.stanford.edu/publications/policy-brief/what-killing-us-coal-industry

Janeane Garafolo
Janeane Garafolo
12 days ago
Reply to  V10omous

True. Which is why it’s baffling to me that “normal” people advocate so hard for something that isn’t even a net benefit.

I like EVs. They are neat. They aren’t the answer. All the people voluntarily flogging their lives by adding complexity to it is fine, and fun.

However…,
Until something changes in a major way, EVs just won’t be on the radar for the majority of Americans. (I understand Europe/China etc.). It’s all such a waste of money.

PlugInPA
PlugInPA
12 days ago

Man am I sick of this reverse American exceptionalism that says we’re too broken to have nice things like clean air, public transit, and no need for kids to have bulletproof backpacks.

Janeane Garafolo
Janeane Garafolo
12 days ago
Reply to  PlugInPA

Huh?

Trinity on a Triscut. No one said anything about exceptionalism, or fucking school shootings.

EVs just aren’t a logical solution for the majority. They aren’t, and won’t be until they are better. Not “almost” as convenient/affordable/logical, but better. I’ll say it again. Better. They don’t qualify as better, because they aren’t yet.

Please try to stay on topic.

Last edited 12 days ago by Janeane Garafolo
Manwich Sandwich
Manwich Sandwich
12 days ago

 Which is why it’s baffling to me that “normal” people advocate so hard for something that isn’t even a net benefit.”

That’s a lie. The truth is there is a net benefit in the long run of much lower operating costs as well as environmental benefits.

“I like EVs. They are neat. They aren’t the answer.”

EVs not being the answer is also a lie

They are the best answer we have available to us right now.

All the people voluntarily flogging their lives by adding complexity to it is fine, and fun.”

BEVs adding complexity is also a lie.

In reality, provided you can charge where you park every day, they actually make life much more simple. No need to find gas stations. No need to watch gas prices. No more oil changes. No more issues like carbon buildup, check engine lights related to emissions, no more tune ups, no more timing belt changes, no more vapor canisters and a bunch of other things you have to deal with on ICE vehicles that don’t exist on a BEV.

It’s all such a waste of money.”

That’s also a lie.

Lockleaf
Lockleaf
12 days ago

“They are the best answer we have available to us right now.”

If the question we need to answer right now is “what is best for the environment”, this is not correct. The Prius was once again found to be the most green/efficient car. Hybrids are currently the best answer for the environment, not BEVs. 80% of the emissions reduction at 30% of the battery minerals cost. And fewer compromises where people like v10mous have concerns.

“Provided you can charge where you park every day”

That word “provided” is carrying a whole lot of weight right there.

Manwich Sandwich
Manwich Sandwich
12 days ago
Reply to  Lockleaf

“The Prius was once again found to be the most green/efficient car.”

You forgot to mention that is only true if it’s a Prius Prime AND the owner remembers to plug it in regularly.

https://cleantechnica.com/2024/02/29/the-greenest-car-you-can-buy-in-america-is-the-toyota-prius-prime-se-maybe/

And you also have to ignore the fact that the organization that made that finding is putting a very big guestimate on the emissions as it pertains to building a heavier vehicle.

https://greenercars.org/greenercars-ratings/how-we-determine-ratings/

Those are three BIG assumptions that make that take ZERO account for the differences in manufacturing efficiency… which if they did fully account for, I’m guessing it would put Tesla vehicles back on top.

And the truth is that over the past 5+ years, Tesla has made huge improvements in manufacturing efficiency and waste reduction… which has translated into them being the most profitable and lowest cost BEV maker.

“That word “provided” is carrying a whole lot of weight right there.”

Of course. But having a plug where you park (or having one installed) isn’t the impossible thing some make it out to be. And plenty of apartments and condos are retrofitting outlets or charging stations for BEVs… not to mention many companies (such as the one I work for) offer free BEV charging to employees as a perk.

Last edited 12 days ago by Manwich Sandwich
Bassracerx
Bassracerx
11 days ago

if you can charge at home electricity is much cheaper. (depending on where you live.) I pay 17 cents per kwh so to charge a tesla model 3 long range from dead would cost me 14 dollars. To fill up my prius is $30 at $3 per gallon. But home ownership is in decline and public chargers suck ass so EV demand will be low until that is addressed.

Cheap Bastard
Cheap Bastard
5 days ago
Reply to  Bassracerx

How far will your Prius go on that full tank though? I’m guessing a lot further than your Tesla on a full battery.

Plugging in your numbers of $0.17 kWh and $3/gallon of gas a Prius Prime will cost $1.06/25 mi on electricity and $1.39/25 mi on gasoline so by your numbers for you electricity is cheaper….for the moment.

In my area the cheapest home electricity rate is double yours at $0.34/kWh and regular gas can currently be had for $4/gallon. That works out to $2.12/25 mi on electricity and $1.85/25 miles on regular so my current math works out to be opposite of yours. The break even point is $4.57/gallon which is not an uncommon price here but of course that assumes all overnight home charging. The rates go up considerably from there.

Charging away from home is a different story: “A common rate at Electrify America chargers is 48 cents per kilowatt hour”.

https://www.nerdwallet.com/article/loans/auto-loans/how-to-use-electrify-america

Which works out to $6.49/gallon in a Prius. YMMV indeed!

Viking Longcar
Viking Longcar
12 days ago

It’s almost as if it Electrify America was created not because Volkswagen wanted to, but as part of a legal settlement due to VW cheating on emissions.

Jason Smith
Jason Smith
12 days ago
Reply to  Viking Longcar

And that is the root of the problem…

Janeane Garafolo
Janeane Garafolo
12 days ago
Reply to  Viking Longcar

Of course, this is well known by now.

The issue lies with those that decided that forcing VW to develop EA as the punishment was the best possible remedy. Looking at the scenario from a step away, that will always be considered stupid.

Drive By Commenter
Drive By Commenter
12 days ago

The urban part of this makes sense. Lots of chargers around and charging past 80% slows down a lot.

Then again I don’t drive rideshare so I’m not sure what strategy is best for those who do. It seems like it would really bite to be stuck charging for 20 minutes at a busy time, however.

Canopysaurus
Canopysaurus
12 days ago

Why not offer a discount as incentive to those who charge to 80 percent or under instead of penalizing those who want or need 100 percent? And until Electrify can improve their charging station in service rate, they’ve got no business rationing customers.

Jason Smith
Jason Smith
12 days ago
Reply to  Canopysaurus

This is a really good idea! I’m generally in favor of incentivizing the wanted behavior instead of punishing the unwanted.

Balloondoggle
Balloondoggle
12 days ago
Reply to  Canopysaurus

It’s just semantics. “Hey, there’s a surcharge to go from 80% – 100%” vs. “Hey, there’s a discount if you stop at 80%” is just sentence structure.

There’s a fine line between positive and negative reinforcement.

Balloondoggle
Balloondoggle
12 days ago

I don’t understand why they wouldn’t implement this only during congested times. If all chargers are occupied, then yes kick in the limit. If a percentage of them are available, then let it ride.

V10omous
V10omous
12 days ago
Reply to  Balloondoggle

I could see that being an issue if someone arrives to an empty station, plugs in thinking they have an hour, leaves the area, and the other chargers fill 5 min later. You have to know the terms when you plug in.

Goose
Goose
12 days ago
Reply to  V10omous

Can’t the terms be “If no congestion you’ll keep charging to 100%, but if it gets busy you’ll get booted early”? That doesn’t sound unreasonable to me, so long as that is readily made clear at the start. It’s really not all that different than pulling up at a gas station afterall; it’s just way easier to consistently enforce. Have your car hogging a Buc-ees pump for an hour on a random Monday night while you’re in the bathroom burning porcelain and they aren’t gonna care cause there are 40 other open pumps, but try the same thing a day or two before Thanksgiving when all 80 pumps are full with other cars waiting and they’ll tow your car.

V10omous
V10omous
12 days ago
Reply to  Goose

I think if charging took 5 minutes like filling a gas pump, that would be one thing, but imagine if you plugged in (again thinking you had an hour before you were finished charging), sat down to dinner at a restaurant down the block, and before your food even arrived, the charger started messaging you and hitting you with idle fees. No one is parking at a Bucees pump while they eat dinner.

I suppose you could say buyer beware, but the restaurants and businesses around the chargers might not appreciate it too much.

BolognaBurrito
BolognaBurrito
12 days ago
Reply to  V10omous

The easy work around is to have the fee be based off the status of the charger when charging starts.

Solutions to your qualms aren’t exactly rocket science so far…

V10omous
V10omous
12 days ago
Reply to  BolognaBurrito

Sure, but that defeats the entire purpose of the post I was replying to.

If you can avoid the congestion tax just by being there first, what’s the point of the tax at all? The people who arrive 5 minutes later are screwed while the first guy stays parked for an hour.

I guess that’s the status quo now, but then why implement the charging limit at all?

Max Poodling
Max Poodling
12 days ago
Reply to  V10omous

Huh? The expectation is that you don’t block a full charger because you are full (or 85%, or whatever the standard is), and also smart phones exist. Just go outside and move your car when you get a ping, or don’t and pay. Do you remember parking meters? It’s like that, but you get a push notification.

I get that this violates your elsewhere stated policy of not lifting a finger for others if it inconveniences you personally. I can’t square that circle for you, you’ll have to do that hard work yourself.

V10omous
V10omous
12 days ago
Reply to  Max Poodling

See my reply above.

At a parking meter, I know exactly how much time I’m paying for and what it will cost in advance. If more cars arrive on the street to park, my rate at the meter doesn’t suddenly go up *while I’m already parked*

Max Poodling
Max Poodling
12 days ago
Reply to  V10omous

But your rate does go up when you stay too long, in the form of tickets. And we’re talking about parking at the pump, not in a random street space of which there are many. Sorry, I should have spelled that out for you. It was an analogy, not a direct comparison – you’re right that parking meters and EV chargers are not the same things.

I know you don’t like change and uncertainty, which is what all of this is about. You’ve been very consistent in voicing that. The hypothetical change you’ve concocted here is that your phone would be telling you when you’re about to pay more to charge extra or park, and the time you have before moving your car away from the public pump is now a variable number – but you’ll be informed in advance if it changes. If you can’t make that incredibly minor change, I’m really not sure if there’s anything that would satisfy you.

NoiseVibrationHastiness
NoiseVibrationHastiness
12 days ago
Reply to  Max Poodling

Bro these condescending digs at V10 aren’t doing you any favors.

V10 is pointing out how it would be unacceptable for the specifics of the transaction to change AFTER accepting the terms. If you know when you press the ‘charge’ button that you will be hit with mega idle fees, that would influence your behavior while your vehicle charges.

In the other scenario, if you agree to a certain rate but 5 minutes later someone else pulls in to charge and your rate changes that would be some BS.

Max Poodling
Max Poodling
12 days ago

You are totally right. Looks like my buttons got pushed and I reacted badly. My tone was out of line and I apologize to V10 for the shitty condescension and Lockleaf for my dismissive response. You are entitled to your opinions and I should have respected that better. My bad.

As to our hypothetical – I think everyone can agree that the second scenario would be unacceptable. But for the first, I think it might be helpful to define what an EV charging spot is. Is it a parking spot that also offers charging, or is it more like a gas pump that fills very slowly, by the hour? Because the expectation of use changes a lot there.

I feel like a per/hour gas station would be justified in instituting fees for staying at the pump for excessive amounts of time while not actually pumping any gas, especially if there were a general shortage of gas stations and thus more customers for them to sell gas to, right?

BolognaBurrito
BolognaBurrito
12 days ago
Reply to  V10omous

I guess that’s the status quo now

Seems a bit ironic coming from you, given your “me, me, me” attitude on moving away from ICE vehicles.

But I still don’t understand how that defeats it. Yes, if you can charge before it’s congested, then didn’t you just move a user from a congested period to a pre-congested period? Even if that doesn’t work, it wouldn’t be hard to create an algorithm that looks a data trends of typical use and compares that to current use, and then favors people who have plugged in beforehand so they don’t get surprise charges. Couple that with high idle charges and what’s the problem?

You can keep popping up theoreticals if you want, but I’m pretty sure most of the replies to you have proven that you are operating in a pretty small window of situations and use cases so far and thus casting that out onto the whole system as if it sucks every time.

V10omous
V10omous
12 days ago
Reply to  BolognaBurrito

My concern was simply that the conditions of max charge level to be delivered and amount of idle charges billed being subject to change (based on uncontrollable factors like other people arriving or not) between the start of the charging and the end is not how most business transactions happen.

If I arrive at a charger and plug in, I want to know what amount of charge I will receive, how much it will cost me, and when my idle charges start before I leave the charger. Just like I do when I buy any product or service. I don’t think that’s particularly unreasonable, but a couple of you guys seem to think it’s worthy of personal attacks???

BolognaBurrito
BolognaBurrito
12 days ago
Reply to  V10omous

but a couple of you guys seem to think it’s worthy of personal attacks???

The hypocrisy is astounding. Wasn’t your very first comment in this thread basically implying that all EV were the bourgeoisie while those against them are the proletariat? I may be mistaken; it’s hard to read my phone in this private jet as I go through turbulence.

V10omous
V10omous
12 days ago
Reply to  BolognaBurrito

Reread it.

That comment was directed at the politicians, think tanks, and NGO staffers that conceived and implemented the mandates. They are overwhelmingly coastal, urban, and don’t care in the least about losing the ability to road trip or tow. That doesn’t make them bad people, but it does mean they are blind to why EV mandates might hurt other people while being relatively costless to themselves.

BoneBrothOutback
BoneBrothOutback
12 days ago

I’m sure the conspiracy nuts will love this.
“SEE!?!?! THE GUBMINT IS GONNA PREVENT YOU FROM LEAVING THE URBAN CORE!!! ITS ALL A METHOD OF CONTROL”

Lockleaf
Lockleaf
12 days ago

I would appreciate someone keeping more people in the urban core. I live a very good distance from the urban core and way too many people are building houses in my little town for my comfort. More urban density in existing dense places! Every major city a 40 story jungle with walking villages everywhere! Then hopefully the horse fields around me will stop growing tract homes.

BoneBrothOutback
BoneBrothOutback
11 days ago
Reply to  Lockleaf

Don’t forget the people moving out there that then complain about how crowded it is.

Speedway Sammy
Speedway Sammy
12 days ago

Just have the Soup Nazi pop up on the video screen when it hits 85%.

IRegertNothing, Esq.
IRegertNothing, Esq.
12 days ago
Reply to  Speedway Sammy

No juice for you!

NebraskaStig
NebraskaStig
12 days ago

I think they would be smart to also put their own metric that 85% of their own infrastructure will be operational as well. Give something for people to see as the benefit they will see

Dolsh
Dolsh
12 days ago
Reply to  NebraskaStig

Perfect response. I wonder how far off they are…

Dave Cooke
Dave Cooke
12 days ago

As someone who’s rented an EV and literally needed every last electron to make it to my next stop (the exact situation mentioned in the article) and charged at an initially crowded station to do so, this really irks me. I’d prefer some voluntary nags — for example, default to stopping at 85% but allow overrides, and give reminders about the busyness of the station and timing, courtesy, etc. to encourage compliance. Shoot, even charging extra fees for going over us fine, but make it manageable given the current density of chargers.

Is the issue that the interfaces aren’t capable of such measures because there’s no standardization across OEMs? Because arbitrarily and nonuniformly limiting your customers’ access seems like a bad idea.

Rad Barchetta
Rad Barchetta
12 days ago
Reply to  Dave Cooke

but allow overrides, and give reminders about the busyness of the station and timing, courtesy, etc. to encourage compliance.

In a world where people go to extraordinary effort to block someone from merging into their lane, refuse to put shopping carts into the corral, and don’t refill the office coffee pot because there are still a few burnt drops left… I don’t see that plan being very effective.

Dolsh
Dolsh
12 days ago
Reply to  Rad Barchetta

There’s a special place in hell for people that don’t refill the office coffee pot.

James Carson
James Carson
12 days ago
Reply to  Rad Barchetta

I think that with the way people behave today, it’s time to begin applying some Monty Python punishments. Say dropping a 80 ton weight on the offender, or blasting them with an old school cannon.

Jason Smith
Jason Smith
12 days ago
Reply to  James Carson

Maybe launch ICE vehicles that block chargers using a trebuche with a comical “BOING” sound…

James Carson
James Carson
12 days ago
Reply to  Jason Smith

That’s one for the quiver, and I counter your offer with a set of giant AI driver flippers and bumpers on the roads to reeducate certain types of drivers.

Jason Smith
Jason Smith
12 days ago
Reply to  James Carson

I like the idea of pinball machine style slingshots (those triangular things above the flippers) that will knock left lane hogs into the right lane.

James Carson
James Carson
12 days ago
Reply to  Jason Smith

Even better into a disqualified lane for ticket collection.

Mike
Mike
12 days ago
Reply to  James Carson

You seem to be confusing Monty Python with Wile E. Coyote. Monty Python would be assaulting them with a halibut.

James Carson
James Carson
12 days ago
Reply to  Mike

I all in for equal opportunity for bad drivers.

PlugInPA
PlugInPA
12 days ago
Reply to  Dave Cooke

This is what dealership Level 2 charging is for. It is just as fast as using L3 to go from 85-100 and much more considerate.

Jack Beckman
Jack Beckman
12 days ago
Reply to  Dave Cooke

And as a side note to needing every last electron – why do so many EVs have light-up logos, light-show head/tailights, and controls that require a screen or touch-sensitive buttons (needs constant power) compared to a physical toggle (doesn’t need constant power)? Maybe these things mean nothing to the range, I don’t know, but it just seems like with all the area tricks and special tires to extend range, aren’t these things easy ways to save electricity?

Sensual Bugling Elk
Sensual Bugling Elk
12 days ago
Reply to  Jack Beckman

All the light-up nonsense is always my cue that a car was designed by committee.

– Marketing demands a showy light signature on the outside.
– Accounting demands that the cost of switches be eliminated to pay for the showy light signature.
– Engineering sighs deeply, then makes it happen.

“We engineered the features you like out of the car, to pay for all the shit you don’t” is pretty much the VW ID4’s slogan.

Viking Longcar
Viking Longcar
12 days ago
Reply to  Dave Cooke

oof a rental return:
“You must return this with a full charge or $$$$”
vs.
“We’ll only charge you to 85%”

Live2ski
Live2ski
12 days ago
Reply to  Viking Longcar

all EV rentals I’ve had let you return with 80-85%

Viking Longcar
Viking Longcar
12 days ago
Reply to  Live2ski

That’s a relief. I’m still waiting for my opportunity.

Last edited 12 days ago by Viking Longcar
Jason Smith
Jason Smith
12 days ago

I’m pretty torn about this. The reality of EV charging makes someone charging from 85-100% almost the equivalent of being stuck waiting for someone at a busy gas station playing clicky-click with the shutoff, for OVER AN HOUR…
Given that it is highly unlikely to be implemented in rural areas (where EV are less common, and max range is more critical) it probably isn’t a bad idea. There should however be some accommodation for overrides where max range is a need instead of a want.

Last edited 12 days ago by Jason Smith
Jason Smith
Jason Smith
12 days ago
Reply to  Jason Smith

There have been some really good ideas in the comments on how to implement this. I like the mentions of having it be charger occupancy based or some increased cost for the last 15% of charge.

Will Leavitt
Will Leavitt
11 days ago
Reply to  Jason Smith

I’m surprised no one has posted that Tesla’s Superchargers have been doing this for *years*. Sometimes you pull up to a station, and it says “High demand charging location- charge limit set to 80%.”

Of course, Tesla does this dynamically based on usage, the nav system is smart enough to direct you to lower usage chargers, you can see the number of stalls currently available at each station in the nav system map, the charger sends you a message when your car is reaching 80%, the cars precondition their battery on the way to the charger so they charge at max speed, the chargers all work, most stations have 8+ stalls, even on I-94 in North Dakota the chargers are spaced 150 mi apart, …

Last edited 11 days ago by Will Leavitt
Jason Smith
Jason Smith
11 days ago
Reply to  Will Leavitt

I’ll admit, I did not know that Superchargers do that but it makes perfect sense. The fact that they utilize their navigation system to manage demand is also pretty smart. I’m not always a fan of Tesla, but credit where it’s due.

Last edited 11 days ago by Jason Smith
197
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x