Poll: Do you have, or plan to get, an electric car?

[betarhoalphadelta]

I will not get a straight electric car.

Nobody is telling you what to do. However two of the most dangerous words in our language are "always" and "never". It may be that an electric car is not the right option for you today, or even in the near future. But as with anything, keep an open mind because it might change down the road.

I would only consider a hybrid that has a gas option. But their pricing is too expensive.

I think the PHEV was an interim step. For 90% of PHEV owners, the range, cost, and charging infrastructure for BEV vehicles make them obsolete. For the drivers who absolutely need ICEV (towing, long distance daily driving, etc), a PHEV doesn't offer enough benefit relative to pure ICEV to justify the cost. Ultimately, I don't think PHEV survive long term, and if they do, will always be a niche vehicle.

I live in Minnesota and if you travel outside of Minneapolis/st paul, there are no chargers to be seen. I have only seen chargers in ramps or the tesla onces at target. Without a gas option, you would be up a creek without a paddle.

Maybe (without looking at charging locations) that's true. However, I'd suggest you think about two things:

1. Charging infrastructure in 2023 isn't the same as what it'll be in 2025 or 2030. It might not be adequate now, but it will improve.
2. If you've got a garage, carport, or at least a driveway, you have a charger as local to you as is possible--at your house. As long as you don't need to completely retrofit your electrical service or add another circuit, installing an L2 charger is pretty manageable cost. In that case you only need to worry about charging infrastructure on the occasions you exceed your BEV battery. Depending on your driving habits, that could be every day or it might only be a handful of times a year.

-----------------

Life changes. I looked at EVs when I needed a car in 2017. At the time, there was absolutely nothing that fit my life and budget better than the used 2014 Ford Flex that I ended up buying. The charging infrastructure was insufficient, and the vehicle options didn't meet my needs or budget. My next vehicle will probably be purchased somewhere around 2027 or later. By that point, EV will be a compelling option and I might (or might not) go that route at that time. Either way, I'm keeping an open mind and will do what is best for my driving habits and situation at that time in my life.

 

[Airborneguy]

Minnesota is somewhere under there. I could zoom in further, revealing far more, but then you’d have zero shot of seeing the state.

 

[betarhoalphadelta]

Oregon state gas tax is $0.38/gallon. That's twelve cents more than here in Virginia. So what's the other $1.75? Other than state excise taxes, the biggest driver of regional differences in gas prices is the cost of buying or leasing land to put filling stations on. I get that dirt is a lot more expensive in California compared to most places, but Oregon?

Oregon isn't all that cheap for real estate. I don't know how they figure the averages, but it would be stupid if they don't weight it for the actual total purchases of gasoline where they exist--and those in the populated (i.e. expensive) areas would then dominate.

So I would think that land values are affecting Oregon prices.

California posts a breakdown of gas prices but the $.66 in taxes doesn't come close to explaining the $2 difference. I suspect our crude and refining prices are inflated as well.

I don't know how big of an issue it is, but we also have unique blend requirements that as far as I am aware means that refiners need to make a CA-only product for us. I'm sure that makes a difference.

But I think a huge portion of it as well is land cost.

The other $1.75 or so for the rest of the west coast...because oil companies can use the excuse of "refinery maintenance" and in Oregon we don't have self serve so some of it is for paying the gas pump attendant. I am actually surprised the gas tax is not higher, since we have a low flat car tag fee. When I moved to Oregon almost 30 years ago it was one of the higher gas tax states.

Hey, I heard you're finally going to be able to pump your own gas now!

 

[mac_1103]

two of the most dangerous words in our language are "always" and "never"

I always try to avoid saying never.

 

[RePete]

Little enough that it’s worth the switch or NOT worth the switch? I’m like you, I drive between 25-30k per year, so switching for me was a no brainer. But those who drive low mileage annually won’t see a benefit.

Not. thanks for pointing out my error. I edited the comment.

 

[passedpawn]

Nobody is telling you what to do. However two of the most dangerous words in our language are "always" and "never".

He didn't say either of your dangerous words.

 

[Kharnynb]

I wish gasoline here was as cheap as 4.50 a gallon....I like the idea of electric cars, but until battery tech gets safer and less reliant on filthy production it's just a step in-between.

 

[betarhoalphadelta]

He didn't say either of your dangerous words.

Oh, I know. The tone of the statement was definitive and not time-bound, so I read a "never" into it.

 

[Bilsch]

I wish gasoline here was as cheap as 4.50 a gallon....I like the idea of electric cars, but until battery tech gets safer and less reliant on filthy production it's just a step in-between.

I'm curious where you got the idea battery manufacturing or the chemicals used therein were somehow dirty? Lithium mining is comparable to the way salt is produced. And for the life of me I can't remember the last time we heard of a lithium platform in the gulf exploding or a manganese tanker hitting a reef and spilling it's contents into the ocean. But even if those chemicals were exceptionally environmentally damaging to produce, which they are not, battery packs are 95% recyclable compared to petroleum fuels which are zero percent.

As for the danger, you are 65 times more likely to have a fire in a gas car then an EV. So says the NHTSA and NFPA data anyway.

Also interestingly the highest safety rated car in the world is all electric.

 

[sibelman]

Lithium mining is comparable to the way salt is produced.

Could be. But this sounds like an effort to minimize or deny the adverse effects of lithium mining. Irrespective of how it compares to salt production, it's believed by some to inflict substantial harms. The Guardian posted this by a "climate justice reporter" who casts a jaundiced eye on the subject.

Even if the article is correct and lithium mines are rather nasty, it just begs the question: would/wouldn't sticking with fossil fuels for cars and trucks be (even) worse than the harm of using electric vehicles?

Other questions include: wouldn't it be better if we drove (and flew!) less, ate less meat, moderated the thermostat settings, etc. etc.? Also, can we find better ways to make steel, concrete, and even salt I guess?

 

[Kharnynb]

While gas fires are more common, you don't have to put a car in a box full of liquid for days to stop it from burning.
As someone from a nation with a lot of car ferries that can take anywhere from 2-12 hours.... I'd rather that the sprinklers work instead of an unquenchable fire on the car deck

 

[Kent88]

A reminder that, while the subjects of electric vehicles and the environment are close, this is not a thread about climate change. We have a thread in the debate section where we discuss that kind of thing.

 

[betarhoalphadelta]

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/jul/04/toyota-claims-battery-breakthrough-electric-cars

 

[Bilsch]

While gas fires are more common, you don't have to put a car in a box full of liquid for days to stop it from burning.
As someone from a nation with a lot of car ferries that can take anywhere from 2-12 hours.... I'd rather that the sprinklers work instead of an unquenchable fire on the car deck

Would you rather try that 65 more times?

 

[Bilsch]

Could be. But this sounds like an effort to minimize or deny the adverse effects of lithium mining. Irrespective of how it compares to salt production, it's believed by some to inflict substantial harms. The Guardian posted this by a "climate justice reporter" who casts a jaundiced eye on the subject.

Even if the article is correct and lithium mines are rather nasty, it just begs the question: would/wouldn't sticking with fossil fuels for cars and trucks be (even) worse than the harm of using electric vehicles?

Other questions include: wouldn't it be better if we drove (and flew!) less, ate less meat, moderated the thermostat settings, etc. etc.? Also, can we find better ways to make steel, concrete, and even salt I guess?

I don't think anyone ever said that mining of lithium was without ecological consequences. The main takeaway should be that lithium based batteries in electric vehicles is by every measure much cleaner as opposed to using petroleum as a transport fuel. Plus these battery materials only need to be mined once then subsequently recycled forever.

 

[Rodent]

Interesting news on EV battery design:

Toyota Claims Breakthrough That Will Lead To 745-Mile EV Battery​

The Japanese automaker says it will soon be able to manufacture a solid-state pack that can charge in 10 minutes.​

https://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/new...r&cvid=560c588749104caf9ec45b06c3ad8a1b&ei=24
While not here just yet, progress is being made now that most all of the T&M industry is focused on EVs and their power modules

 

[bleme]

Interesting news on EV battery design:

Toyota Claims Breakthrough That Will Lead To 745-Mile EV Battery​

The Japanese automaker says it will soon be able to manufacture a solid-state pack that can charge in 10 minutes.​

https://www.msn.com/en-us/autos/new...r&cvid=560c588749104caf9ec45b06c3ad8a1b&ei=24
While not here just yet, progress is being made now that most all of the T&M industry is focused on EVs and their power modules

I saw that story yesterday. A Chinese company made a similar claim in 2020. It would be awesome if it is true but, for me, it is in the "I'll believe it when I see it" category.

 

[sibelman]

Many battery breakthroughs have been announced. Progress at the production line has been incremental. This or similar would be great if it translates to the claimed great leap forward.

 

[tracer bullet]

Interesting news on EV battery design:

See just a handful of posts above yours

I'm also in the see-it-to-believe-it camp. I am positive there will be breakthroughs and I really hope for them (especially if it helps lighten up the cars for more sportier intentions). But do feel like it's a headline I've seen every few months now for years.

 

[Rodent]

dang it - I hate making a mistake like that. didn't see it on my phone prior to using my laptop to post

 

[betarhoalphadelta]

dang it - I hate making a mistake like that. didn't see it on my phone prior to using my laptop to post

I wasn't gonna point it out

 

[Bilsch]

The news is awash with so called battery technology breakthroughs. Most of it though is really just the same red herring BS as hydrogen has been for the last 20 plus years. Simply to slow the adoption of current battery technology because something so much better is right around the corner.

IMO the battery with the most promise is the high surface area silicon anode Li ion technology which features faster charging and more than double energy density of the current graphite anode Li ion batteries in common use today. The company Amprius is already manufacturing cells for military drones in Fremont, CA and getting ready to build a second manufacturing site in Colorado.

I believe the game changer is already here.

 

[sibelman]

Anyhow, as regards Toyota: better late than never. Where Nissan led, Toyota has been very slow to follow. Honda even slower.

 

[Bilsch]

We were just talking about the risk of gas cars vs electric cars on ships. Sadly it seems that gas tanks are not easy to put out either.

https://abc7ny.com/newark-nj-firefighters-ship-fire-port-killed/13472286/

 

[betarhoalphadelta]

https://jalopnik.com/no-one-in-the-us-really-wants-to-buy-electric-vehicles-1850622254
Obviously a clickbait headline, but an interesting article nonetheless. Right now EV supply is outstripping EV demand. Cars are sitting unsold on lots, with EV inventory cycles close to double that of ICEV.

Not that this means anything long-term, of course. Right now battery technology is expensive, and it's interesting that some of the models they highlight at having high inventory relative to sales volumes are all expensive (2x Audi models, the GMC Hummer EV, and the Genesis EV). I'd say that market is somewhat saturated right now while a theoretical "budget EV" market is underserved.

I'd love to get a comparison between BEV and ICEV inventory of vehicles in the same class and price range. But the article doesn't have that.

 

[El Whedo]

I'd say that market is somewhat saturated right now while a theoretical "budget EV" market is underserved.

Yep.

I walk or use a bicycle daily.

In the summer I use my motorcycle to run slightly farther errands (90% within ten miles and my bike gets 75-80 MPG). But I'd sure love to have something affordable and enclosed for that type of errand in the winter.

Under ten K would be my cost limit, otherwise I'd just keep using my Subaru. If I could get something with a hundred mile range (or even fifty mile range) for under 5K I'd not think twice, but it would be just a winter driver and I've heard that the batteries have problems with REAL winters. This last winter was fairly mild, but we still got to -38F. A heater would be mandatory, but no other amenities would be needed, not even a radio.

 

[mac_1103]

a theoretical "budget EV" market is underserved

That market is theoretical precisely because it is so woefully underserved.

 

[sibelman]

woefully underserved

The price range of EVs available in the U.S. tilts heavily toward the high end, led by Tesla. I guess margins are higher in this range, but you'd think one of the majors would find a path toward profit with something costing less than two Corollas, that could therefore sell in higher volume. Yet, new entrants seem to all start north of $40K. This "has to" change.

 

[betarhoalphadelta]

That market is theoretical precisely because it is so woefully underserved.

I'd argue it's theoretical / woefully underserved based on nothing more than economics. You can get a big battery / long range, or you can get an EV cheap. You can't get both. And I'd argue that range anxiety is still an issue for a lot of people. Especially people who may have lower incomes and can't live as close to work as they want, so might have long commutes exacerbating range anxiety.

I'd also note that a lot of the people who might be interested in the lower-end models may also be renters or apartment dwellers who have more difficulty charging than homeowners who can charge at home.

So the people that can afford the low-end models is because that's all they can afford, and correlates with living conditions that make some of the biggest advantages of BEVs (charging at home, and taking advantage of the lower electricity costs at home compared to 3rd-party chargers) are not there for those consumers.

 

[mac_1103]

You can get a big battery / long range, or you can get an EV cheap. You can't get both. And I'd argue that range anxiety is still an issue for a lot of people.

I won't disagree with that directly but I will say this: A $17,000 Kia Rio weighs 2700 lbs and has a 120 hp engine. A $27,000 Chevy Bolt weighs 3600 lbs and has a 200 hp electric motor. Maybe the price difference could be a little less if the size and power differences were a little smaller. And maybe 250 miles of range wouldn't need such a big battery if you were building a smaller, less powerful car.

Especially people who may have lower incomes and can't live as close to work as they want, so might have long commutes exacerbating range anxiety.

Those people aren't buying new cars anyway.