There will be no climate Nirvana brought on by the widespread use of EVs. Forget the cost and range issues for now; let's pretend those don't exist. Just where's all that electricity going to come from to power all those vehicles when EVs are the order of the day coast to coast and the demand for electricity for residential / commercial / manufacturing continues to rise due to population increase along with the elimination of fossil fuels for energy production in those areas? And how "clean" will its production be?
Also, I'd like to see some credible data on the *total carbon footprint* of EVs, meaning not just the energy it takes to power them but the energy it takes to manufacture one of these 'clean' vehicles. And I mean all the energy, from the mining of the lithium and Rare Earth minerals for the battery pack and motor to the energy used to manufacture all the component parts to the energy consumed in the final assembly of the vehicle. These things look really *clean*. But other than their actual operation, they're not.
And what will we do with all the batteries that will eventually wear out? Any plans for recycling / handling all the toxic waste that will be created as these cars go out of service through collisions and normal attrition? But hey, we haven't bothered to come up with a way to safely deal with nuclear waste for the long term, so why worry about a few batteries...
Nope. EVs will be a big part of the solution for climate change, true. But this head-long rush to totally get rid of internal combustion vehicles within a decade is, while admirable on its face, not only foolish but, I'll just go ahead and say it, stupid. Too many problems to solve in too short of a time frame. And we're all gonna' pay a price for it if smarter heads don't take the reins, both in government and industry.
There are actually companies, including some battery makers, that are operating recycling plants to provide feedstock for their operations. That, of course, leaves open the question of how one gets a couple of thousand pounds of battery from the shop to the recycling center.
Alternatively, we could store the old batteries with the nuclear waste and just wait for the foreseeable but unpredictable cataclysm to occur, thereby resolving the problem messily but effectively.
In respect of the supply problem, renewable energy is the answer, but, as Tom notes, the time-line is unrealistic and current technology relies on many of the same materials and techniques that you address. The simple answer is that there are no simple answers, we just have to keep plugging away and hope that my 2013 Subaru lasts as long as Tom's Camry.
Yep. And that my 2014 Durango and 2004 Dodge pickup last as long as I will be driving. Not that I couldn't afford an EV. But there are none that will come close to working for where and how I live.
As to what Tom was talking about concerning luxury vs affordable basic EVs, the auto companies will build what's profitable and what people will pay for. Until the 'luxury' market and mid-price markets are saturated, don't look for basic, affordable models of EVs. And we may not even get them then. GM et al are in business to make money for their stockholders, not to do what might be good for the country or the environment.
It seems that should be the next step — Shouldn’t manufacturing exist to satisfy the needs of the consuming citizenry, the country’s infrastructure and the environment? Not the stockholders. That sounds so wrong to me. Is built-in obsolescence still a thing? Will the digital panel on my dishwasher die in 6 years after purchase? Will the chemicals in my grandchildren’s toys kill them eventually? Is the food I pay a premium for really organic? Is fluoride in the drinking water a good thing? Is the drinking water I pay for any good? Predatory Capitalism is ugly.
By the way...I forgot to say that I really liked that crack about simply waiting for the 'foreseeable but unpredictable cataclysm' and the 'resolution' of the problem. That's probably a lot closer to the truth of the matter than any of us would like to think.
I’d suggest we haven’t much of a choice. Human civilization must reduce temps. One significant contributor is ICE vehicles for personal travel. Granted, some distributed electricity is from coal or natural gas plants. But some is from solar radiation ( including panels on your home’s roof), or wind or geothermal or, dare I say it, nuclear. Those energy sources are not available to ICE vehicles. And coal and gas and nuclear plants can be regulated from time to time whenever we get a hand up on the oligarchs. There are unique pollution challenges to EVs, but those challenges do not increase temps that much. So I suggest we move to EVs mindfully, eyes wide open, knowing we have unique challenges to solve, but let’s try to lower temps. We got to lower temps.
Agree. The risks in the long run far outweigh the benefits of nuclear. But even if we could reduce those risks to zero at the plant operating level, there's still the issue of nuclear waste. And if we haven't figured out how to deal with that by now - and we haven't - I have zero confidence that we'll do it in a new "nuclear" future before there's a major *incident* of some kind regarding that.
So true. Where is there a place that will not be changed geologically for a time period three times longer than recorded human history (the half-life of plutonium), where we can guarantee that humans will not get into it and cause problems with it in the future? A minimal reading of history leaves me convinced that the human problem would be more than the geological problem.
We absolutely have to address global warming. And you put the period on the end of my comment by saying we need to move to EVs *mindfully*, avoiding the all-too-common modus operandi of finding an apparent solution to part of a large and serious problem and then talking ourselves into believing it to be the near be-all, end-all solution to the entire problem.
Nothing inherently wrong with EVs, other than that their current capabilities only make sense for heavy use in urban areas with short, or relatively short, milage applications. They are not suitable for most city to city or interstate travel on a large scale. Nor are they suitable for rural residents who have to drive many miles just for basic things like grocery shopping or medical treatment. And their capabilities are reduced in cold weather, so living in a northern state in this country is a consideration.
Considering the above, I'd see a move toward EVs that put an emphasis on a significant number of vehicles in the entirety of the vehicle fleet in this country being hybrids as a truly "mindful" move. That goes a long way toward addressing "range" issues while still reducing emissions as the performance of all-electric vehicles improves with time and manufacturing experience and the ensuing developments that always brings.
During a recent cold snap here in the Midwest, many charging stations would not operate. I’d be more comfortable with a hybrid to tell the truth. (Came back to edit this as it overstates the frozen charger issue. Yes, some charging stations froze up, and the rest operated much more slowly. There were very long lines with hours spent waiting one's turn. And finally, many cars in line ended up being towed because they lost power while waiting. It seems cold weather also causes battery life/range to shorten by as much as 20-30%.)
There has been a big argument that hybrids were the way to go, then move into EVs. Unfortunately, Wall Street has decided anything less that "the best" isn't worth investing in. Another reason for Wall Street to be abolished.
TC, great column. I, too, have not bought a new car for years; they are simply too expensive, and things are heading in a similar direction even in the used car market.
Where I live in rural NH, EVs are not the answer for me because of cost and the lack of charging stations. When it is time to replace my gas car, a hybrid is an answer for me, but the price will still be a concern.
The problem with the gas to EV conversion is that no one is taking the leadership to get all the players to sit down and plan for the future. Business certainly is not doing it, and I don't think Biden can do it without Congress, and we know that the current Republicans want no part of that.
Someone or a group of forward-thinking industry leaders, engineers, and scientists need to get a one-on-one meeting with President Biden and come up with the plan.
Hell, Kennedy set the goal of a man on the moon before the end of the decade, and no one had a clue how to do it then, and the technology didn't even exist, yet the mission was accomplished. Go figure that. We need a NASA-like group, organized by the federal government, to lead the way with a kick-off by President Biden.
I currently live in Omaha. I would buy a plug-in electric hybrid in a heartbeat, but I wouldn’t touch a pure electric car with a 100 foot pole. There are simply far too many places in my state where there are simply no chargers at all. A plug-in electric hybrid, on the other hand, I could charge from an existing 110 V outlet that is right next to my parking space in my condo garage, and when I am driving around in Omaha it would be functioning 100% off of electricity. But I wouldn’t be afraid to drive it in the rural areas of my state since it would have a gas engine as a back up. There would be no danger of being stuck. I honestly do not know why both gasoline hybrids and plug-in electric hybrids are not being promoted more aggressively. Why are we making the perfect the enemy of the good?
Hybrids are very functional and a great transition method that allows for charging infrastructure to build up over time. Wall Street might not like it but reality kicks Wall Street’s butt
The range factor and availability of gas stations, huh?
I bought a hybrid, Honda CRV last year after my non hybrid CRV was totaled in a no fault of my own 6 car accident. I have to have a car since the hospital where I work in Portland is 120 miles round trip from my home. I considered buying a new EV, but heard many of the negatives that TC and others here have spoken of. Since I need an SUV the price was also a factor. I love the Hybrid though, and save a lot on gas and have at least decreased the carbon emissions some when I drive.
As is often the case government gets high on the glitz without doing enough research, brainstorming and wondering.
1. The infrastructure should have been considered first or at least simultaneously with actual vehicles.
2. Americans drive because they can. I dare say the majority of Ameticans do not live where there is reliable, frequent, and convenient public transit...most of us live in transportation deserts. If you have lived anywhere in Europe you know that our situation in the US is absolutely ridiculous. Addressing green house gasses would be helped IF we had a coherent, nationwide mode of interconnected public transit access.
3. One reason we don't have the transportation infrastructure that would benefit everyone is because our nation SUBSIDIZES the fossil fuel industry and the automobile industry. We subsidize drivers not to buy vehicles but by subsidizing the roads we travel on. We have not raised fuel taxes for YEARS and those taxes could provide some of the necessary support for EV infrastructure. Too often infrastructure is left up to the market to solve also with government susidies. From my experience and observation there is no coherent long range national agreement and commitment to addressing climate change as it is being impacted by how we move people, goods, and services from place to place.
Finally today I heard a story from Boulder,CO about local efforts to help more low income people have access and funds to purchase or receive really good food from local farmers. I was shocked to learn that our nation subsidizes all the junk food in your local store but the folks growing the food that's good for you are essentially on their own. I guess that constitutes a "free market". They too deserve to be able to live from their work.
At any rate, President Biden and his team need to rethink their plan. They will need a plan that won't be crashed every four years by someone politicizing addressing climate change/catastrophe. That kind of commitment requires public INPUT through a process. Then maybe there would be BUY-IN emotionally that could make the nessary change not only possible but long term.
My biggest fear is that with the push toward EV and away from gasoline-powered cars, those of us who have the latter, especially older models, may not be able to get parts for them in the future. I have a 2003 Honda Civic with just 39,000 miles on it (that's not a typo), with big windows I have great visibility through, and because I drive so little (obviously!), my maintenance costs are very low. I hope to keep it running for the rest of my life, maybe another 10 or 15 years. If not, I would much more likely consider a hybrid than an EV in that case.
My 2008 Camry now has about 97,000 miles on it - bought it in 2010 with 42,000. And so far, bless its little heart, its been a really good car. I expect it to be the last one I have.
The only car I ever had that I enjoyed the "process" was a black El Camino that I loved dearly.
I think, at this time, with the whole climate issue finally getting right in our faces - what kind of car we drive really might not be the most important issue of our lives.
Exchanging fossil fuels for lithium, copper & other mines, doesnt sound all that much like a good thing.
People get 300,000 miles on those Civics. (Like my former secretary.) There will be money to make on parts for a long time. At this rate, you’re gonna have that Civic as long as you want.
No way would I consider an electric car, especially since my retirement, I only buy used cars, and I wouldn’t even think of a tesla. I drive a Mercedes SL that I bought used with 58,000 miles for $13K , I have put 20,000 on it in 12 years, it was $110K new and drives like it. I should have bought a Porsche, it would have cost more but been worth more. The trick is to have a shop that you can trust, if I won the lottery, and I would have to play, I would buy a new Porsche 911 Touring in a heartbeat, that’s my kind of car, a car you wear like a suit, but I’m a Motörhead and have been one all of my life. While a car is important to get you from one place to another, to me the process of the getting is what is important. I have driven everything from Ferraris to Ducatis and I can remember in detail what each one of them felt like to drive or ride. Riding a Ducati is like riding a race horse, it feels alive underneath you, I’ve owned motorcycles most of my life, nothing I have ridden feels like a Ducati. Cars isolate you more, and the differences at the high performance end are subtle, but even at driving around speeds there is a difference between a Porsche and a Toyota. I’m not denigrating the latter, my father drove one, and it was a good car for him, if I’m going to get in a car and drive somewhere, I want to enjoy the process. There are labs all over the place working on batteries that will be much lighter, give 600 miles of range, charge in the time it takes to fill up with gas, and not need materials imported from china, when they hit the market we will see a change unless we see biofuels first. F1 this year is going to be run with biofuels, 1.6 liter motors that make 1000+ hp. There are a lot of balls in the air besides teslas, BMW has been developing Hydrogen powered cars for instance, taxes as well as infrastructure is what will play a big part, so we’ll see won’t we.
Those things in development look promissing. I have subscribed to NASA Tech Briefs since it's first issue. I'm a gearhead too and earned my living thinking up better "gears". It's an invaluable resource. They have a battery and electrification supplement as well as motors and materials and anything you can imagin. There's a lot of good headscratching going on, but the powers in biblebelt congress see no mention of science in their "BOOK". Same as 1994. Science research funding slashed and buisiness development was left by the side of the road. The just cut NAA's Mars mission.
Cuckin Fristians. Federal research dollars return many times over in future tax income, as well as making life better.
TC, Good thoughtful essay. I too do not believe that EVs can solve the fossil fuel climate change issue anytime soon. There are too many side effects hampering the transition that cannot be resolved. I worked in LA - CenturyCity/Westwood about forty years ago. I have visited occasionally since then, but was never tempted to return more permanently. Without a mode of inexpensive personal transportation that mirrors the gas vehicle, EVs will be slow to adopt and really matter with the effects of climate change.
That's the dilema Tom. When Capitalism gazed out upon the wide open spaces in the West, the dollar signs twinkled in their eyes. That attitude has never changed and rules the game. Sprawling suburbs and the massive expensive infrastructure became our reality. Europe had little land per capita and primarily integrated vertically, leaving land for food production and pleasure. Public transportation was welcomed for berg to berg travel and integrated into peoples lives. It was efficient and useful when one got to another town and it was easy to get to where one wanted to go. Large Eastern cities and San Francisco are the only places in this country where public transportation is efficent and widely used.
I'm planning a trip this spring to visit friends along Hwy 49 through the old gold country up to Sierra City to see some cousins. I'm not sure even a Tesla could make that trip. Back in the day, stagecoaches were plentiful.
Of course, in the grand sense, the great size of the US is a hindrance to good public transportation - ALL of Europe, from Finland to the Italian boot, and France to the eastern border of Poland and Hungary, would fit into the eastern part of the US (east of the Mississippi) with plenty of room left over..... But we could still have had high-speed inter-city high-speed train service (anything under 500 miles would get you door-to-door faster than flying).....
Of course. I was addressing the dominant mindset that put profit over anything. Southern California had a very economical and efficient rail transportation network throughout the region. Bought by Detroit and Big Oil and yanked out in the early 60s in favor of lot$ of $$$ for GM and Standard.
"We could have"??? We DID have it. Big$$$$ runs the show, if you haven't noticed.
Endless war in Middle East? Oil and weapons industry. Iran hates us?? Kermit Roosevelt of the CIA eliminated the first democraticly elected Premier in the whole Middle East, Iran, because he was somewhat of a socialist who wanted the nations resources held in trust for the Iranian people. Capitalist mindset. Wall Street can have no example of a successful socialist nation. Oh dear, the people might want it here....Chile, Viet Nam ..on and on.
You might be interested in the amazing and economical mass transportation system in So Cal.
Pacific Electric Railway a wkipedia post
Headquarters Los Angeles, California
Reporting mark PE
Locale Greater Los Angeles Area
Dates of operation 1901–1961 (passenger), 1965 (freight)
Successor Southern Pacific (freight)
Los Angeles Metropolitan Transit Authority, Los Angeles Metro Rail (passenger)
Technical
Track gauge 4 ft 8+1⁄2 in (1,435 mm) standard gauge
Electrification Overhead line, 600 V DC, 1200 V DC (San Bernardino Line only)
The Pacific Electric Railway Company, nicknamed the Red Cars, was a privately owned mass transit system in Southern California consisting of electrically powered streetcars, interurban cars, and buses and was the largest electric railway system in the world in the 1920s. Organized around the city centers of Los Angeles and San Bernardino, it connected cities in Los Angeles County, Orange County, San Bernardino County and Riverside County.
The system shared dual gauge track with the 3 ft 6 in (1,067 mm) narrow gauge Los Angeles Railway, "Yellow Car," or "LARy" system on Main Street in downtown Los Angeles (directly in front of the 6th and Main terminal), on 4th Street, and along Hawthorne Boulevard south of downtown Los Angeles toward the cities of Hawthorne, Gardena, and Torrance.
This should give you some idea. Attitude and mindset is the deal. Anything is possible, if it's not put off too long.
Honestly - its the same issue with EVERYTHING that might possibly save this planet! Humans do NOT want to give up ANYTHING that they are used to having and getting. In order to fix the absolute mess that we as humans have created & caused - sacrifice is necessary. Of course, not from any of the 1%ers - that goes without saying. Like the Tesla owners who are so much better off than ordinary everyday people. (I'm talking about the ones you described, TC, looking down upon someone driving a Camry). I dont remember seeing a decrease of people driving their SUVs & pickups when gas was much higher or cutting back on their driving - maybe trying to combine all their errands into one trip. Oh they complain about high gas & of course blame the President. Strange, they blame him (Biden, that is) when things cost more, but when prices go down - oh he's just one man - he doesnt have anything to do with that! Well unless tfg was still in office, of course. Remember - hes never to blame for ANYTHING & any possible good that happens - even if someone else is responsible - well he takes credit!
I quite honestly doubt an EV will ever be something I need to even think about, for which I am grateful!
If you live in the country, as we do, a vehicle is a necessity. We have thought about getting a hybrid, but the prices are higher than we want to pay with our retirement income. We expect to drive our current 13 year old vehicle for a long time.
Tom, I agree completely with you. And I think it was stupid of the feds to push a transition to EVs, instead of, say, mandating a stiff carbon tax and that all new homes and other buildings should be zero zero fossil fuel heating and cooling, but instead should be superinsulated, and get electricity to run heat pumps (which both heat and cool, for anyone not familiar with them) from solar or wind, rooftop solar or utility solar/wind.
But....... too many busy bodies who hate gas cars pushed for EVs. They hate cars because cars are all over the place, taking us hither and yon--much more visible than the heating and cooling systems in houses and buildings, more visible than the methane that cattle produce, and the other global warming emissions from agriculture.
I'm 70. I'm hoping I've got at least another 20 years. My Civic (stick) is 15 years old, and it's my favorite of all the cars I've owned. I bought it used for 11.6 grand, when it was four years old with 35k. It now has 158k, and it still drives just as well and just as fun as it did when it was new to me. Some cars can go a looooong way if they're treated well, and if you keep up with maintenance.
My Civic is a lot more fun than any EV I've driven. Internal combustion has character. EVs don't--not the Tesla Model S I drove, nor the Hyundai Ioniq 5. The Kia Soul, which belongs to a friend, had a bit of soul, despite being an EV. But all that torque on EVs--meh.
Yes, I know we have to get emissions down to zero. I learned about global warming in '75, from John Holdren. But driving is my favorite non-social activity, and if I had to drive an EV, it wouldn't be the same. Meanwhile, I've had no children, something that in terms of global warming vastly outweighs just about anything else a person can do in terms of CO2. So I'm not going to feel guilty about driving the Civic--which gets close to 40 mpg on the road, and close to 30 in the city.
If the feds had been serious about reducing global warming, they could have put weight limits on cars, which can now exceed 6 grand lbs due to the batteries,ssss and personal pickup trucks, which can exceed 10 Gs.
The weight on EV cars and trucks puts the rest of us at risk for mayhem in case of crash, and the weight grinds EVs' tires into tiny shreds that can enter your lungs and spread around in your body, damaging your health for the rest of your life.
Not only that, but mining and processing Lithium for those batteries does far more environmental damage—China is facing monstrous pollution from Lithium battery production. Argentina, Bolivia and Chile have more than half the world’s supply of Lithium, yet in dry regions. It takes a lot of water to extract Lithium, water that those populations can’t afford to lose. https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/renewable/the-environmental-impact-of-lithium-batteries/
I hear you TC and agree with all that you said there. I have a couple of further points to add.
The EV market is still relatively young, but have you looked into the cost of replacing EV batteries? Rechargeable batteries have a life cycle and replacements can be equal to or more than that of a complete new engine and transmission for an internal combustion powered vehicle (and require replacing more frequently than the several hundreds of thousands of miles over several decades that regularly serviced ICE vehicles attain). Which makes those used EVs a bit less of a bargain. Further, I don't consider the rare earth metals and plastics used in manufacturing of electric vehicles such wonderful planet saving advances. On or two backward steps. And why don't EVs have built-in solar charging? The engineers, designers, and manufacturers have produced barely half completed products. I won't be buying a EV that ties me to the grid either.
Perhaps the future lies in hydrogen cell powered FCEVs (Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles) such as those that Toyota have been developing for 10 years. I like to think and hope so. Remember, they introduced the Prius, the first mass-produced hybrid EV in the world, more than 25 years ago.
The Mirai looks promising. I read where they’re only sold in SoCal as the only place in US with hydrogen refueling stations.Probably would be decades before the “freedom(NOT) state got on board. The 2024 Fl legislature is also proposing addition annual fee of $200+ for electric vehicles, 50 for hybrids.
Several years ago my Prius’ main battery died after ~ 9 years and 150,000 miles. It was literally worthless. I went back to my favorite car, Honda Civic. Husband found a used,2019 with minimal miles. Yearn for my manual,5-speed Civic of 30 years ago with far less technology.
I had a 1975 Civic 5-speed. A great little car, drove the hell out of it till 1986. 180,000 miles on it. One thing I like about modern cars is that 200k on my Camry isn't "too much" since it was properly maintained.
Exactly WHY are there tax breaks for yachts & private planes? Whoever is loaded enough to own either shouldnt need a tax break! And then there are the subsidies for - well - whatever!
I think we have passed a tipping point. We were at our 11th Hour when Obama was installing environmental measures . . . And then came the MAGAts, financed by billionaires like Charles KKKoch, whose fortune is based on oil/gas . . . I think it’s too late. Clean water will be the most precious resource soon. The world is overpopulated and we haven’t addressed that, either. We’re already seeing the fallout of global climate change—massive unrest, migrations; the glaciers are disappearing, ocean levels are rising, weather patterns are fluctuating. . .If you want to know more about what the fascists have in store, read The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein.
This has me wondering how the shift from horses to automobiles worked. All of a sudden you need gas stations instead of hay.
Another point, I'm waiting for solar powered batteries before considering buying an EV. And I'm not sure how that would actually work either. Just another thing to think about.
Well, in rural America, cars didn't really replace horses until after World War II - when all those great trucks and jeeps and such that were built for the war became super cheap at the surplus stores.
Spot on TC. You omitted to mention the cost of having a charging unit installed at home. My friend had it done, had to add a new 100amp service and it cost almost $17,000. I just put a solar array on my roof for less.
Bang up reporting, TC! For so long I’ve been wanting this zoom-out on EV vs Gas in order to understand its complexity and trade-offs. I learned many new things, not the least of which is that cars are so expensive whether new or used, gas or electric. Being limited by range and charging infrastructure with EV’s defeats the purpose of the reason I drive.
There will be no climate Nirvana brought on by the widespread use of EVs. Forget the cost and range issues for now; let's pretend those don't exist. Just where's all that electricity going to come from to power all those vehicles when EVs are the order of the day coast to coast and the demand for electricity for residential / commercial / manufacturing continues to rise due to population increase along with the elimination of fossil fuels for energy production in those areas? And how "clean" will its production be?
Also, I'd like to see some credible data on the *total carbon footprint* of EVs, meaning not just the energy it takes to power them but the energy it takes to manufacture one of these 'clean' vehicles. And I mean all the energy, from the mining of the lithium and Rare Earth minerals for the battery pack and motor to the energy used to manufacture all the component parts to the energy consumed in the final assembly of the vehicle. These things look really *clean*. But other than their actual operation, they're not.
And what will we do with all the batteries that will eventually wear out? Any plans for recycling / handling all the toxic waste that will be created as these cars go out of service through collisions and normal attrition? But hey, we haven't bothered to come up with a way to safely deal with nuclear waste for the long term, so why worry about a few batteries...
Nope. EVs will be a big part of the solution for climate change, true. But this head-long rush to totally get rid of internal combustion vehicles within a decade is, while admirable on its face, not only foolish but, I'll just go ahead and say it, stupid. Too many problems to solve in too short of a time frame. And we're all gonna' pay a price for it if smarter heads don't take the reins, both in government and industry.
There are actually companies, including some battery makers, that are operating recycling plants to provide feedstock for their operations. That, of course, leaves open the question of how one gets a couple of thousand pounds of battery from the shop to the recycling center.
Alternatively, we could store the old batteries with the nuclear waste and just wait for the foreseeable but unpredictable cataclysm to occur, thereby resolving the problem messily but effectively.
In respect of the supply problem, renewable energy is the answer, but, as Tom notes, the time-line is unrealistic and current technology relies on many of the same materials and techniques that you address. The simple answer is that there are no simple answers, we just have to keep plugging away and hope that my 2013 Subaru lasts as long as Tom's Camry.
Yep. And that my 2014 Durango and 2004 Dodge pickup last as long as I will be driving. Not that I couldn't afford an EV. But there are none that will come close to working for where and how I live.
As to what Tom was talking about concerning luxury vs affordable basic EVs, the auto companies will build what's profitable and what people will pay for. Until the 'luxury' market and mid-price markets are saturated, don't look for basic, affordable models of EVs. And we may not even get them then. GM et al are in business to make money for their stockholders, not to do what might be good for the country or the environment.
As always.
It seems that should be the next step — Shouldn’t manufacturing exist to satisfy the needs of the consuming citizenry, the country’s infrastructure and the environment? Not the stockholders. That sounds so wrong to me. Is built-in obsolescence still a thing? Will the digital panel on my dishwasher die in 6 years after purchase? Will the chemicals in my grandchildren’s toys kill them eventually? Is the food I pay a premium for really organic? Is fluoride in the drinking water a good thing? Is the drinking water I pay for any good? Predatory Capitalism is ugly.
By the way...I forgot to say that I really liked that crack about simply waiting for the 'foreseeable but unpredictable cataclysm' and the 'resolution' of the problem. That's probably a lot closer to the truth of the matter than any of us would like to think.
Thanks, and I'm afraid you're right about how close to the truth it is.
I’d suggest we haven’t much of a choice. Human civilization must reduce temps. One significant contributor is ICE vehicles for personal travel. Granted, some distributed electricity is from coal or natural gas plants. But some is from solar radiation ( including panels on your home’s roof), or wind or geothermal or, dare I say it, nuclear. Those energy sources are not available to ICE vehicles. And coal and gas and nuclear plants can be regulated from time to time whenever we get a hand up on the oligarchs. There are unique pollution challenges to EVs, but those challenges do not increase temps that much. So I suggest we move to EVs mindfully, eyes wide open, knowing we have unique challenges to solve, but let’s try to lower temps. We got to lower temps.
God I hope we don't go to nuclear - the energy that has t o be handled absolutely perfect - by imperfect humans.
Agree. The risks in the long run far outweigh the benefits of nuclear. But even if we could reduce those risks to zero at the plant operating level, there's still the issue of nuclear waste. And if we haven't figured out how to deal with that by now - and we haven't - I have zero confidence that we'll do it in a new "nuclear" future before there's a major *incident* of some kind regarding that.
So true. Where is there a place that will not be changed geologically for a time period three times longer than recorded human history (the half-life of plutonium), where we can guarantee that humans will not get into it and cause problems with it in the future? A minimal reading of history leaves me convinced that the human problem would be more than the geological problem.
The *human problem* is the biggest problem the world over. 🙄
We absolutely have to address global warming. And you put the period on the end of my comment by saying we need to move to EVs *mindfully*, avoiding the all-too-common modus operandi of finding an apparent solution to part of a large and serious problem and then talking ourselves into believing it to be the near be-all, end-all solution to the entire problem.
Nothing inherently wrong with EVs, other than that their current capabilities only make sense for heavy use in urban areas with short, or relatively short, milage applications. They are not suitable for most city to city or interstate travel on a large scale. Nor are they suitable for rural residents who have to drive many miles just for basic things like grocery shopping or medical treatment. And their capabilities are reduced in cold weather, so living in a northern state in this country is a consideration.
Considering the above, I'd see a move toward EVs that put an emphasis on a significant number of vehicles in the entirety of the vehicle fleet in this country being hybrids as a truly "mindful" move. That goes a long way toward addressing "range" issues while still reducing emissions as the performance of all-electric vehicles improves with time and manufacturing experience and the ensuing developments that always brings.
During a recent cold snap here in the Midwest, many charging stations would not operate. I’d be more comfortable with a hybrid to tell the truth. (Came back to edit this as it overstates the frozen charger issue. Yes, some charging stations froze up, and the rest operated much more slowly. There were very long lines with hours spent waiting one's turn. And finally, many cars in line ended up being towed because they lost power while waiting. It seems cold weather also causes battery life/range to shorten by as much as 20-30%.)
There has been a big argument that hybrids were the way to go, then move into EVs. Unfortunately, Wall Street has decided anything less that "the best" isn't worth investing in. Another reason for Wall Street to be abolished.
TC, great column. I, too, have not bought a new car for years; they are simply too expensive, and things are heading in a similar direction even in the used car market.
Where I live in rural NH, EVs are not the answer for me because of cost and the lack of charging stations. When it is time to replace my gas car, a hybrid is an answer for me, but the price will still be a concern.
The problem with the gas to EV conversion is that no one is taking the leadership to get all the players to sit down and plan for the future. Business certainly is not doing it, and I don't think Biden can do it without Congress, and we know that the current Republicans want no part of that.
Someone or a group of forward-thinking industry leaders, engineers, and scientists need to get a one-on-one meeting with President Biden and come up with the plan.
Hell, Kennedy set the goal of a man on the moon before the end of the decade, and no one had a clue how to do it then, and the technology didn't even exist, yet the mission was accomplished. Go figure that. We need a NASA-like group, organized by the federal government, to lead the way with a kick-off by President Biden.
I currently live in Omaha. I would buy a plug-in electric hybrid in a heartbeat, but I wouldn’t touch a pure electric car with a 100 foot pole. There are simply far too many places in my state where there are simply no chargers at all. A plug-in electric hybrid, on the other hand, I could charge from an existing 110 V outlet that is right next to my parking space in my condo garage, and when I am driving around in Omaha it would be functioning 100% off of electricity. But I wouldn’t be afraid to drive it in the rural areas of my state since it would have a gas engine as a back up. There would be no danger of being stuck. I honestly do not know why both gasoline hybrids and plug-in electric hybrids are not being promoted more aggressively. Why are we making the perfect the enemy of the good?
Hybrids are very functional and a great transition method that allows for charging infrastructure to build up over time. Wall Street might not like it but reality kicks Wall Street’s butt
The range factor and availability of gas stations, huh?
That IS the issue.
I bought a hybrid, Honda CRV last year after my non hybrid CRV was totaled in a no fault of my own 6 car accident. I have to have a car since the hospital where I work in Portland is 120 miles round trip from my home. I considered buying a new EV, but heard many of the negatives that TC and others here have spoken of. Since I need an SUV the price was also a factor. I love the Hybrid though, and save a lot on gas and have at least decreased the carbon emissions some when I drive.
As is often the case government gets high on the glitz without doing enough research, brainstorming and wondering.
1. The infrastructure should have been considered first or at least simultaneously with actual vehicles.
2. Americans drive because they can. I dare say the majority of Ameticans do not live where there is reliable, frequent, and convenient public transit...most of us live in transportation deserts. If you have lived anywhere in Europe you know that our situation in the US is absolutely ridiculous. Addressing green house gasses would be helped IF we had a coherent, nationwide mode of interconnected public transit access.
3. One reason we don't have the transportation infrastructure that would benefit everyone is because our nation SUBSIDIZES the fossil fuel industry and the automobile industry. We subsidize drivers not to buy vehicles but by subsidizing the roads we travel on. We have not raised fuel taxes for YEARS and those taxes could provide some of the necessary support for EV infrastructure. Too often infrastructure is left up to the market to solve also with government susidies. From my experience and observation there is no coherent long range national agreement and commitment to addressing climate change as it is being impacted by how we move people, goods, and services from place to place.
Finally today I heard a story from Boulder,CO about local efforts to help more low income people have access and funds to purchase or receive really good food from local farmers. I was shocked to learn that our nation subsidizes all the junk food in your local store but the folks growing the food that's good for you are essentially on their own. I guess that constitutes a "free market". They too deserve to be able to live from their work.
At any rate, President Biden and his team need to rethink their plan. They will need a plan that won't be crashed every four years by someone politicizing addressing climate change/catastrophe. That kind of commitment requires public INPUT through a process. Then maybe there would be BUY-IN emotionally that could make the nessary change not only possible but long term.
Excellent points.
Cold affects not just charging time but how long an EV battery holds its charge on the road or even unplugged in the garage overnight.
https://insideevs.com/features/703378/how-cold-affects-electric-vehicles/
My biggest fear is that with the push toward EV and away from gasoline-powered cars, those of us who have the latter, especially older models, may not be able to get parts for them in the future. I have a 2003 Honda Civic with just 39,000 miles on it (that's not a typo), with big windows I have great visibility through, and because I drive so little (obviously!), my maintenance costs are very low. I hope to keep it running for the rest of my life, maybe another 10 or 15 years. If not, I would much more likely consider a hybrid than an EV in that case.
My 2008 Camry now has about 97,000 miles on it - bought it in 2010 with 42,000. And so far, bless its little heart, its been a really good car. I expect it to be the last one I have.
The only car I ever had that I enjoyed the "process" was a black El Camino that I loved dearly.
I think, at this time, with the whole climate issue finally getting right in our faces - what kind of car we drive really might not be the most important issue of our lives.
Exchanging fossil fuels for lithium, copper & other mines, doesnt sound all that much like a good thing.
It's quite the quandary, isn't it?
It certainly is.
People get 300,000 miles on those Civics. (Like my former secretary.) There will be money to make on parts for a long time. At this rate, you’re gonna have that Civic as long as you want.
Thanks for that comforting comment, Gary.
No way would I consider an electric car, especially since my retirement, I only buy used cars, and I wouldn’t even think of a tesla. I drive a Mercedes SL that I bought used with 58,000 miles for $13K , I have put 20,000 on it in 12 years, it was $110K new and drives like it. I should have bought a Porsche, it would have cost more but been worth more. The trick is to have a shop that you can trust, if I won the lottery, and I would have to play, I would buy a new Porsche 911 Touring in a heartbeat, that’s my kind of car, a car you wear like a suit, but I’m a Motörhead and have been one all of my life. While a car is important to get you from one place to another, to me the process of the getting is what is important. I have driven everything from Ferraris to Ducatis and I can remember in detail what each one of them felt like to drive or ride. Riding a Ducati is like riding a race horse, it feels alive underneath you, I’ve owned motorcycles most of my life, nothing I have ridden feels like a Ducati. Cars isolate you more, and the differences at the high performance end are subtle, but even at driving around speeds there is a difference between a Porsche and a Toyota. I’m not denigrating the latter, my father drove one, and it was a good car for him, if I’m going to get in a car and drive somewhere, I want to enjoy the process. There are labs all over the place working on batteries that will be much lighter, give 600 miles of range, charge in the time it takes to fill up with gas, and not need materials imported from china, when they hit the market we will see a change unless we see biofuels first. F1 this year is going to be run with biofuels, 1.6 liter motors that make 1000+ hp. There are a lot of balls in the air besides teslas, BMW has been developing Hydrogen powered cars for instance, taxes as well as infrastructure is what will play a big part, so we’ll see won’t we.
Interesting info, Dick.
Those things in development look promissing. I have subscribed to NASA Tech Briefs since it's first issue. I'm a gearhead too and earned my living thinking up better "gears". It's an invaluable resource. They have a battery and electrification supplement as well as motors and materials and anything you can imagin. There's a lot of good headscratching going on, but the powers in biblebelt congress see no mention of science in their "BOOK". Same as 1994. Science research funding slashed and buisiness development was left by the side of the road. The just cut NAA's Mars mission.
Cuckin Fristians. Federal research dollars return many times over in future tax income, as well as making life better.
TC, Good thoughtful essay. I too do not believe that EVs can solve the fossil fuel climate change issue anytime soon. There are too many side effects hampering the transition that cannot be resolved. I worked in LA - CenturyCity/Westwood about forty years ago. I have visited occasionally since then, but was never tempted to return more permanently. Without a mode of inexpensive personal transportation that mirrors the gas vehicle, EVs will be slow to adopt and really matter with the effects of climate change.
That's the dilema Tom. When Capitalism gazed out upon the wide open spaces in the West, the dollar signs twinkled in their eyes. That attitude has never changed and rules the game. Sprawling suburbs and the massive expensive infrastructure became our reality. Europe had little land per capita and primarily integrated vertically, leaving land for food production and pleasure. Public transportation was welcomed for berg to berg travel and integrated into peoples lives. It was efficient and useful when one got to another town and it was easy to get to where one wanted to go. Large Eastern cities and San Francisco are the only places in this country where public transportation is efficent and widely used.
I'm planning a trip this spring to visit friends along Hwy 49 through the old gold country up to Sierra City to see some cousins. I'm not sure even a Tesla could make that trip. Back in the day, stagecoaches were plentiful.
Of course, in the grand sense, the great size of the US is a hindrance to good public transportation - ALL of Europe, from Finland to the Italian boot, and France to the eastern border of Poland and Hungary, would fit into the eastern part of the US (east of the Mississippi) with plenty of room left over..... But we could still have had high-speed inter-city high-speed train service (anything under 500 miles would get you door-to-door faster than flying).....
Of course. I was addressing the dominant mindset that put profit over anything. Southern California had a very economical and efficient rail transportation network throughout the region. Bought by Detroit and Big Oil and yanked out in the early 60s in favor of lot$ of $$$ for GM and Standard.
"We could have"??? We DID have it. Big$$$$ runs the show, if you haven't noticed.
Endless war in Middle East? Oil and weapons industry. Iran hates us?? Kermit Roosevelt of the CIA eliminated the first democraticly elected Premier in the whole Middle East, Iran, because he was somewhat of a socialist who wanted the nations resources held in trust for the Iranian people. Capitalist mindset. Wall Street can have no example of a successful socialist nation. Oh dear, the people might want it here....Chile, Viet Nam ..on and on.
You might be interested in the amazing and economical mass transportation system in So Cal.
Pacific Electric Railway a wkipedia post
Headquarters Los Angeles, California
Reporting mark PE
Locale Greater Los Angeles Area
Dates of operation 1901–1961 (passenger), 1965 (freight)
Successor Southern Pacific (freight)
Los Angeles Metropolitan Transit Authority, Los Angeles Metro Rail (passenger)
Technical
Track gauge 4 ft 8+1⁄2 in (1,435 mm) standard gauge
Electrification Overhead line, 600 V DC, 1200 V DC (San Bernardino Line only)
The Pacific Electric Railway Company, nicknamed the Red Cars, was a privately owned mass transit system in Southern California consisting of electrically powered streetcars, interurban cars, and buses and was the largest electric railway system in the world in the 1920s. Organized around the city centers of Los Angeles and San Bernardino, it connected cities in Los Angeles County, Orange County, San Bernardino County and Riverside County.
The system shared dual gauge track with the 3 ft 6 in (1,067 mm) narrow gauge Los Angeles Railway, "Yellow Car," or "LARy" system on Main Street in downtown Los Angeles (directly in front of the 6th and Main terminal), on 4th Street, and along Hawthorne Boulevard south of downtown Los Angeles toward the cities of Hawthorne, Gardena, and Torrance.
This should give you some idea. Attitude and mindset is the deal. Anything is possible, if it's not put off too long.
Honestly - its the same issue with EVERYTHING that might possibly save this planet! Humans do NOT want to give up ANYTHING that they are used to having and getting. In order to fix the absolute mess that we as humans have created & caused - sacrifice is necessary. Of course, not from any of the 1%ers - that goes without saying. Like the Tesla owners who are so much better off than ordinary everyday people. (I'm talking about the ones you described, TC, looking down upon someone driving a Camry). I dont remember seeing a decrease of people driving their SUVs & pickups when gas was much higher or cutting back on their driving - maybe trying to combine all their errands into one trip. Oh they complain about high gas & of course blame the President. Strange, they blame him (Biden, that is) when things cost more, but when prices go down - oh he's just one man - he doesnt have anything to do with that! Well unless tfg was still in office, of course. Remember - hes never to blame for ANYTHING & any possible good that happens - even if someone else is responsible - well he takes credit!
I quite honestly doubt an EV will ever be something I need to even think about, for which I am grateful!
If you live in the country, as we do, a vehicle is a necessity. We have thought about getting a hybrid, but the prices are higher than we want to pay with our retirement income. We expect to drive our current 13 year old vehicle for a long time.
Tom, I agree completely with you. And I think it was stupid of the feds to push a transition to EVs, instead of, say, mandating a stiff carbon tax and that all new homes and other buildings should be zero zero fossil fuel heating and cooling, but instead should be superinsulated, and get electricity to run heat pumps (which both heat and cool, for anyone not familiar with them) from solar or wind, rooftop solar or utility solar/wind.
But....... too many busy bodies who hate gas cars pushed for EVs. They hate cars because cars are all over the place, taking us hither and yon--much more visible than the heating and cooling systems in houses and buildings, more visible than the methane that cattle produce, and the other global warming emissions from agriculture.
I'm 70. I'm hoping I've got at least another 20 years. My Civic (stick) is 15 years old, and it's my favorite of all the cars I've owned. I bought it used for 11.6 grand, when it was four years old with 35k. It now has 158k, and it still drives just as well and just as fun as it did when it was new to me. Some cars can go a looooong way if they're treated well, and if you keep up with maintenance.
My Civic is a lot more fun than any EV I've driven. Internal combustion has character. EVs don't--not the Tesla Model S I drove, nor the Hyundai Ioniq 5. The Kia Soul, which belongs to a friend, had a bit of soul, despite being an EV. But all that torque on EVs--meh.
Yes, I know we have to get emissions down to zero. I learned about global warming in '75, from John Holdren. But driving is my favorite non-social activity, and if I had to drive an EV, it wouldn't be the same. Meanwhile, I've had no children, something that in terms of global warming vastly outweighs just about anything else a person can do in terms of CO2. So I'm not going to feel guilty about driving the Civic--which gets close to 40 mpg on the road, and close to 30 in the city.
If the feds had been serious about reducing global warming, they could have put weight limits on cars, which can now exceed 6 grand lbs due to the batteries,ssss and personal pickup trucks, which can exceed 10 Gs.
The weight on EV cars and trucks puts the rest of us at risk for mayhem in case of crash, and the weight grinds EVs' tires into tiny shreds that can enter your lungs and spread around in your body, damaging your health for the rest of your life.
Not only that, but mining and processing Lithium for those batteries does far more environmental damage—China is facing monstrous pollution from Lithium battery production. Argentina, Bolivia and Chile have more than half the world’s supply of Lithium, yet in dry regions. It takes a lot of water to extract Lithium, water that those populations can’t afford to lose. https://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/renewable/the-environmental-impact-of-lithium-batteries/
Thanks for the link. I will be sure to read it!
I hear you TC and agree with all that you said there. I have a couple of further points to add.
The EV market is still relatively young, but have you looked into the cost of replacing EV batteries? Rechargeable batteries have a life cycle and replacements can be equal to or more than that of a complete new engine and transmission for an internal combustion powered vehicle (and require replacing more frequently than the several hundreds of thousands of miles over several decades that regularly serviced ICE vehicles attain). Which makes those used EVs a bit less of a bargain. Further, I don't consider the rare earth metals and plastics used in manufacturing of electric vehicles such wonderful planet saving advances. On or two backward steps. And why don't EVs have built-in solar charging? The engineers, designers, and manufacturers have produced barely half completed products. I won't be buying a EV that ties me to the grid either.
Perhaps the future lies in hydrogen cell powered FCEVs (Fuel Cell Electric Vehicles) such as those that Toyota have been developing for 10 years. I like to think and hope so. Remember, they introduced the Prius, the first mass-produced hybrid EV in the world, more than 25 years ago.
https://www.toyota.co.nz/hydrogen/
The Mirai looks promising. I read where they’re only sold in SoCal as the only place in US with hydrogen refueling stations.Probably would be decades before the “freedom(NOT) state got on board. The 2024 Fl legislature is also proposing addition annual fee of $200+ for electric vehicles, 50 for hybrids.
Several years ago my Prius’ main battery died after ~ 9 years and 150,000 miles. It was literally worthless. I went back to my favorite car, Honda Civic. Husband found a used,2019 with minimal miles. Yearn for my manual,5-speed Civic of 30 years ago with far less technology.
I had a 1975 Civic 5-speed. A great little car, drove the hell out of it till 1986. 180,000 miles on it. One thing I like about modern cars is that 200k on my Camry isn't "too much" since it was properly maintained.
Before I trade my hybrid, they had better address the tax breaks for yachts and private planes...
Exactly WHY are there tax breaks for yachts & private planes? Whoever is loaded enough to own either shouldnt need a tax break! And then there are the subsidies for - well - whatever!
On and on.
!
I think we have passed a tipping point. We were at our 11th Hour when Obama was installing environmental measures . . . And then came the MAGAts, financed by billionaires like Charles KKKoch, whose fortune is based on oil/gas . . . I think it’s too late. Clean water will be the most precious resource soon. The world is overpopulated and we haven’t addressed that, either. We’re already seeing the fallout of global climate change—massive unrest, migrations; the glaciers are disappearing, ocean levels are rising, weather patterns are fluctuating. . .If you want to know more about what the fascists have in store, read The Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein.
As usual, I so appreciate your energy and written discussions—always food for thought!! Thank you (and commenters), TC!
The commentators are who make TAFM what it is.
This has me wondering how the shift from horses to automobiles worked. All of a sudden you need gas stations instead of hay.
Another point, I'm waiting for solar powered batteries before considering buying an EV. And I'm not sure how that would actually work either. Just another thing to think about.
Well, in rural America, cars didn't really replace horses until after World War II - when all those great trucks and jeeps and such that were built for the war became super cheap at the surplus stores.
And if they ran out of gas you could always get a farmer to hitch up his horses a tow you to a gas station.
Spot on TC. You omitted to mention the cost of having a charging unit installed at home. My friend had it done, had to add a new 100amp service and it cost almost $17,000. I just put a solar array on my roof for less.
Bang up reporting, TC! For so long I’ve been wanting this zoom-out on EV vs Gas in order to understand its complexity and trade-offs. I learned many new things, not the least of which is that cars are so expensive whether new or used, gas or electric. Being limited by range and charging infrastructure with EV’s defeats the purpose of the reason I drive.