EV- The weather is changing

[TerryB]

19 minutes ago, padgett said:

Suspect 2020 had a big reduction in emissions. Any effect ?

Yes, there was at least one report the sun shone brighter in some locations which made the temperature higher than usual.  Another report said more wildlife wandered in to urban areas that were quieter with less traffic on the streets. Many cities had less overall air pollution as documented in before and after photographs.

[60FlatTop]

2020, no significant reductions.

 

Nothing jumps right out. It never does. I have been watching since the energy crisis of 1973. For all the energy rhetoric  the only real savings has been from increased light bulb efficiency ever 5 or 6 years. And contractors hire college students to put new bulbs in for each upgrade because the kids work cheap. Raise your hand if you had a job relamping during college. If you didn't do that you made punch cards. Well, not all. Future teachers learned to paint houses during the summer. (Knew a guy with an MBA on Benjamin-Moore).

 

 

Edit. Note: consumption = emissions out.

Edited April 30, 2021 by 60FlatTop (see edit history)

[1912Staver]

Trying something certainly has its merits. But if trying something involves changing the way all of mankind produces and uses energy then I can't see reaching the goal of limiting the rise of global average temps. And particularly not within the time frame we are being told is necessary.  Even assuming that actually is the correct solution. 

 And you are correct, I have no solution. 

Reducing { eventually eliminating } world wide carbon emissions is a task beyond imagination. And what would provide the energy that is up to now produced by burning fossil fuels is also beyond imagination. And to do all of this in 50 or 60 years { or less depending on who is doing the estimate } may well not be even remotely possible.

I truly hope I am wrong , but I think there is a very good chance Global Warming is just something we are going to have to learn to live with.

Edited April 30, 2021 by 1912Staver (see edit history)

[ply33]

1 hour ago, 1912Staver said:

Considering that even the mechanics of cause and effect of global warming are largely theory even at this point. 

 

Yes ; the global average temp is rising, no dispute whatsoever. 

 

But the next step in the logic; why is the global average temp rising ?, is far from defined fact. Natural cyclic temperature change ? side effects of burning fossil fuels ?, A combination of these two , or other factors ? Not even close to a consensus amongst scientist's . 

 

A very large , extremely dynamic system . Involving solar radiation and all the variables that involves, ocean currents, air currents . And energy radiation  from the earth to space. To conclusively state " this is the problem " - burning fossil fuels. And then equally positively state " this is the solution " stop burning fossil fuels, seems to me to be a act of faith more than a rational act of science and logic.

 

Greg

The way young/new scientists make their mark is by looking for and, they hope, finding discrepancies between existing theory and experimental/observational data then coming up with a better theory that explains everything explained by the old theory and the newly noted discrepancies. Because of that, you will always be able to find a scientist who doesn’t agree with the current consensus. In addition, people making big money on the status quo typically fund people for research to back the status quo. So you will never have 100% of the scientists in a field agree and there will be loud arguing about details at the fringe.

 

Keep in mind that the word “theory“ in science has a specific meaning quite different than in common non-science usage. In non-science usage it often means the same as “hunch” or “guess”. In science it is a formal description or model (usually in the form of math) that describes and predicts the behavior of a system. To be accepted it needs to formally account for all the know observational data and make testable predictions about what new observations can or will show. A result of this is that theories usually can’t be proven true (we haven’t observed all possible data yet) they can only be proven false (we made an observation that current theory says can’t happen).

 

All this is a lead up to this: Anthropogenic global warming is the only scientific theory we have that explains the current run up in global temperatures and resultant changes we are seeing in weather, sea levels, glacial and polar melting, etc. No other theory accounts for all the current observations.

 

Scientists aren’t dumb. They have been accounting for “natural cyclic temperature change”, “side effects of burning fossil fuels, “combination of these two” and  ”other factors”. For example, a number of previous long term climatic shifts have been correlated with changes in the earth’s orbit and solar output. That is known. And the math to describe it has been developed. It is also known that the correlation broke down during the last 150 years and in particular the last 50 years. Orbital and solar models say we should be cooling off now not heating up.

 

And it is false that there is “not even close to a consensus amongst scientist's".  Virtually all scientists in any field that studies climate or in field affected by climate (biology, etc.) accept that it is the only theory that accounts for what they are seeing.

 

Now look at the alternatives: If anthropogenic global warming is true and the trends continue we are very likely to end up in an environmental collapse that could threaten civilization. This is a crisis in the true meaning of the world, not as it is typically used to convey urgency to more everyday problems. If we act now we may still be able to avoid total disaster. In the worst case, 99% of scientists are wrong and we have spent some resources on reducing our environmental footprint on the earth and made it a healthier place for us all.

 

A “wait and see” while continuing on our current path is actually the “act of faith more than a rational act of science and logic" path.

[60FlatTop]

In the 1940’s Edward Teller, the father of the nuclear age, predicted some ozone depletion and atmospheric damage from nuclear explosions. His estimate was a natural recovery in a few months’ time. Ozone variations had already been noted with seasonal change and in different geographical areas. Damage was a by-product of an explosion, not of huge concern. Soon after a 12.5 kiloton atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima.

In a recent news release from a researcher in Colorado there was speculation of a nuclear confrontation between Russia and Afghanistan. The project used of 50 times the Hiroshima explosion could possibly do a large amount of damage to our already delicate atmosphere. I would agree.

In my personal research I have found that surface testing of atomic weapons has totaled 540 megatons of explosions between 1943 and 1990. That is megatons compared the Teller’s kilotons and a lot more than 50 times which concerned the researcher; about 40,000 times greater than the 12.5 kiloton. Each of these tests incinerated the atmosphere at 7,000 degrees, destroying the ozone and creating nitrous oxides. Year after year the US, Russia, Britain, China, France, and others continued to incinerate the atmosphere at a rate far exceeding Teller’s estimates.

I believe that the natural ability of the atmosphere to “heal” itself is being slowed by continuous surface testing and the exponential generation of CO2 by human consumption. Just like a piece of iron will return to its natural state; the sky would also return to its natural conditions. The problem we face today is that our CO2 generation is working like paint on iron. It is retarding the natural processes that would normally bring the atmosphere back.

Fuel is cheap. It is the reckless use of “carbon input” that creates the unnecessary size of our global carbon footprint. When a business uses fuel the cost is passed on to the end user. If costs get too high employees are eliminated. It is fast, easy cost reduction and does not require and investment in efficiency. In other cases we look at energy conservation as a purchase and not and investment. “If you buy one to these with capital dollars it will save you money.” Budgets for maintenance or training are frequently low if they exist at all.

There are a lot of reasons for our total inefficiencies. They cost money to fix and the pain of behavioral change. The inefficiencies amount to usage of 30 to 40% more carbon based resources than we need. If we stop incinerating the sky and reduce our waste by 40% for 40 years, I think the atmosphere will recover to a natural varying state.

This string started in a political manner. It will be hard for current two party politics to accommodate a reversal of the trends that bought us to this point. Waiting for a dole out of stimulus funds will not remedy the problem. Each of us needs to get up and walk through every square foot of our buildings and do the immediate things needed. We have people accepting 18 year pay backs for energy saving equipment. How fast do you save money when you turn the light switch off? How fast does that small portion of carbon input stop?

[TerryB]

6 minutes ago, 1912Staver said:

Trying something certainly has its merits. But if trying something involves changing the way all of mankind produces and uses energy then I can't see reaching the goal of limiting the rise of global average temps. And particularly not within the time frame we are being told is necessary.  Even assuming that actually is the correct solution. 

 And you are correct, I have no solution. 

Reducing { eventually eliminating } world wide carbon emissions is a task beyond imagination. And what would provide the energy that is up to now produced by burning fossil fuels is also beyond imagination. And to do all of this in 50 or 60 years { or less depending on who is doing the estimate } may well not be even remotely possible.

I truly hope I am wrong , but I think there is a very good chance Global Warming is just something we are going to have to learn to live with.

Greg, I respect your views and appreciate your approach to the issues and the discussions.  These points are indeed complex and challenging to say the least.  As a motorcycle rider for nearly 40 years I often thought, especially traveling in cities and being behind city diesel buses, where does all this gunk from the tailpipes wind up (besides on me and my clothing)?  I hope we come out of this whole experience smarter and more understanding of how any of it really does matter and hopefully better off than when we started.

 

[wws944]

Setting aside "climate change" - both political and otherwise, there is Economics.

 

On a per-mile/km basis, the variable costs of driving a EV vs typical ICE car falls in favor of EVs by a factor of 3-4x.  This doesn't even include all the maintenance that ICEs require and EVs don't.

 

The upfront cost has been the barrier.  When the Tesla Roadster came out about 12 years ago, its battery costs were over $1000/kWh.  Its 53 kWh pack represented about half the cost of its $100k price.  The 2011 Volt had a 16 kWh pack plus ICE, and the 2011 Leaf had a 24 kWh pack.  So one can easily see why the latter two had MSRPs in the $30-40k range.

 

However with Li-ion battery production ramping up and resulting economies of scale, times have changed.  When GM released the Bolt EV in 2017, somehow it was leaked (but never confirmed) that they were paying LG only $145/kWh for the Bolts 60 kWh pack.  Huge price difference.  Sandy Munro thinks Tesla/Panasonic's costs are below $100/kWh.  It has been widely stated that $100/kWh is the threshold where ICE becomes more expensive than EV to purchase.

 

I would argue that gov't tax credits or rebates should disappear completely.  The "invisible hand of the market" will naturally move increasing numbers of new car purchasers to EVs.

[1912Staver]

There are so many human behaviors that could be changed to reduce environmental impact.

First, stop the rapid rise of the overall population  the planet has been seeing for the last 50 years.  More people equals more energy consumed. A lot more people, a lot more energy. And the world definitely has a lot more people every decade.

And its not just the raw numbers of people but also the more affluent standard of living { consumption } that the world has been moving toward over that same time.

Stop clearing / burning the worlds forests. Major increase in cattle and meat production / consumption in recent decades.

Block chain mining, energy consumption through the roof to produce what ? Wealth ?

Stop promoting the cyber universe . Data farms consuming untold energy so people can indulge in online gaming , endless video streams, a far worse affliction on the population than the TV ever dreamed of being. Seen one lame cat riding a robot  vacuum cleaner video , seen them all.

Fly away quick " all inclusive " vacations, live like a rich person for a week or two and drink your face off.  Is that all that keeps the grayness of life at bay ?

Make everything in one corner of the globe and ship it everywhere else.

And so many more ways we collectively squander energy and resources. 

Its not just changing the way we do some things, its changing the way we do everything.

Edited May 1, 2021 by 1912Staver (see edit history)

[padgett]

Bread and Circuses.

[Frank DuVal]

5 hours ago, 60FlatTop said:

Edit. Note: consumption = emissions out

 

Well, that would depend on the source of energy, right?😉

[60FlatTop]

Probably wrong. An action without a reaction is hard to do. Sometimes it just happens a little farther back in the carbon trail.

 

It would be nice to plant seeds for these things and grow them on site, but I know it takes a lot of diesel power to move them around the world. Not as clean a process as promoted.

 

[John348]

1 hour ago, 60FlatTop said:

Probably wrong. An action without a reaction is hard to do. Sometimes it just happens a little farther back in the carbon trail.

 

It would be nice to plant seeds for these things and grow them on site, but I know it takes a lot of diesel power to move them around the world. Not as clean a process as promoted.

 

 

Bernie,

Very true, but for the most part the transport of the material is "one and done" once it is up and running it will require very little transportation logistics, where as the power plants require a constant need for transport of fuel and combined with the emissions produced.  

[1912Staver]

It's not the way mankind does things as much as the why mankind does things. The underlying instinct and psychology that unconsciously direct many of mankind's actions and activity's. 

 There is a hard wired desire for bigger, better, newer, shinier, more etc. that lies at the core of human activity. Social status, the ability to attract the most desirable mate possible.  Internal measure of self worth and achievement against ones peers. and probably a good 1/2 dozen more basic motivators of human activity.

In short the whole enchilada of human existence.

 

Almost all of it degrades the earths environment to one degree or another.

 

It's not just about using the best light bulb , or choosing to drive an EV.  If we are going to save the planet; and ourselves, then nothing short of a reinvented human is required.  It's the complete impossibility of that taking place that leads me to say we are going to have to learn to live with global warming. 7.9 billion humans and counting.  It's an environmental slow motion trainwreck. Buckle up!

 

 

[TerryB]

I have subscribed to being a bit more frugal, a lot less flashy and of the mindset to enjoy life without too much baggage.  As for attracting a mate, my 1970s hair style and sometimes funky contemporary clothing choices didn’t seem to do much good in that department.  Most of my purchases are based on what works without extravagance.  The exception was a new Z28 Camaro in 1983.  It was my one time give in to flash.  I don’t think I’m cheap but I do research in an effort to spend my money wisely and with maybe with too much research at times.

 

Our economics is based on making lots of goods and spending lots money to attain them. Without energy and raw materials life as we know it would not exist.  It’s too bad we have to always trying to outdo last years financial goals to be considered successful and thus be fast tracking to the complications that creates the problems we are discussing here.  

[JD in CA]

On 4/22/2021 at 8:50 AM, Digger914 said:

A Tesla on auto pilot hit a tree and it burned for how many hours? and took how many gallons of water to extinguish?

We are going to need more infrastructure than charging stations to fill the highways with modern electric vehicles. We are going to need a super fast fire suppression system that works on these batteries, or a lot of urns for the ashes of their occupants. 

32,000 gallons, a fact.

[padgett]

Good example of a secondary cost. These are very real and result from the presence of the original item.

[rocketraider]

On 4/22/2021 at 3:55 PM, rocketraider said:

... the people beating the drum loudest for wholesale conversion to electric vehicles quite simply have not thought that far ahead.

 

[Matt Harwood]

As of today, I have joined the ranks of pure electric car owners. It will be in my driveway tomorrow.

 

 

I look forward to the experience. Our commute is 3 miles each way (I often walk but Melanie drives) and we obviously own myriad gas-powered vehicles for long highway trips. We have 200 amp service in our house and unlimited power at the shop for charging and our electric bill is currently about $58/month so even if it goes up 25% because of the car, that's hardly a crippling hardship (most people say it goes up about 8-10%). It is with an open mind that I am eager to see what it is like to own and drive an all electric vehicle. I do not expect it will be the world-ending nightmare the naysayers hope it will be nor the Nirvana that the most fervent proponents say it is. Just a different way to get from point A to point B.

 

[TerryB]

Audi e-tron.  Nice!  

[Zimm63]

54 minutes ago, TerryB said:

Audi e-tron.  Nice!  

Very nice indeed.  Apparently the old car business has been berry berry good to Matt lately.   Glad things are going well.  Now, about that #%Q^ Lincoln.  

 

 

[charlier]

Congrats Matt on the EV purchase. Keep us updated on your EV ownership experience with some first hand, real world information.

 

Any chance we might get to see your new EV at Fall Hershey this year?

[padgett]

The 222 mile range sounds usable even for some trips. How long would it take to charge at 240vac/30A  ?

For my Vixen I used to carry a large assortment of plugs and adapters, most friends allowed me to connect to their dryer plug to run my AC overnight.

[wws944]

4 hours ago, padgett said:

The 222 mile range sounds usable even for some trips. How long would it take to charge at 240vac/30A  ?

For my Vixen I used to carry a large assortment of plugs and adapters, most friends allowed me to connect to their dryer plug to run my AC overnight.

 

A 30 amp circuit is 24 amps continuous.  (NEC requires derating circuits with continuous loads to 80%.)  So you'd be charging at about 5.7 kW.   I'd figure about 3 miles/kWh for the e-Tron - giving about 17 mph.  For in-town driving, it will probably be better than that.

[Matt Harwood]

I'm installing a 240V 50 amp circuit with 6-gauge wire and the charger is capable of charging at 40 amps continuous. It can go from 30% to 80% charged in 3 hours and to 100% charged in about 8 hours. So plug it in when you get home at night and it's always topped off ready to go. We'll see what real-world results are, but as I said, Melanie's commute is only 3 miles each way so we'll rarely stress the batteries or have range anxiety. Like I said, we have other stuff to drive if we have a road trip--finding charging stations on the road and hoping that they're vacant isn't something I really want to deal with.

[wws944]

11 minutes ago, Matt Harwood said:

I'm installing a 240V 50 amp circuit with 6-gauge wire and the charger is capable of charging at 40 amps continuous. It can go from 30% to 80% charged in 3 hours and to 100% charged in about 8 hours. So plug it in when you get home at night and it's always topped off ready to go. We'll see what real-world results are, but as I said, Melanie's commute is only 3 miles each way so we'll rarely stress the batteries or have range anxiety. Like I said, we have other stuff to drive if we have a road trip--finding charging stations on the road and hoping that they're vacant isn't something I really want to deal with.

 

Probably end up like me - where I only bother to charge the car once or twice a week.  I usually charge to 90% - so I don't stress the battery pack and also have full regen.  Then let it drop to 20-30% before recharging.

 

A few days ago, I saw an e-Tron with Texas plates here in N. California.  So there are some brave souls who do road trip in them.  Plugshare and ABetterRoutePlanner web sites and phone apps are musts.  With an e-Tron, signing up with Electrify America is also pretty much a given.

[padgett]

Looks like a very nice all around family car.

[ply33]

6 hours ago, wws944 said:

. . .  With an e-Tron, signing up with Electrify America is also pretty much a given.

That is one thing I don’t like about DC fast charging for EVs: Needing to have an account with a charging network or with multiple charging networks.

 

I am not sure, but it seems that you might be able to use a credit or debit card to charge on some networks but it looks like the price is significantly higher than if you have an account so if you do much road tripping you will need an account with one or more networks like Electrify America, Charge Point, EVgo, Tesla, etc. So as you write “signing up with Electrify America is also pretty much a given.” But it shouldn’t have to be.

 

Only saving grace is that many/most people will be able to do all of their local travel by charging at home and will only need to use DC fast chargers when on longer trips.

 

I don’t need to sign up with Shell, Chevron, Arco, Mobile, etc. to buy gas. I can do it with any debit or credit card or even cash. This is not a technical requirement but forced on EV owners by the business models of the charging networks.

[edinmass]

Access to charging stations and rates will probably become regulated at the state and federal level. Wait till they offer a “premium “ charging position for faster access to the better located and over used stations. I think the most interesting future of EV’s is the on demand use in the city’s. Since a car is stationary 99 percent of the time, it takes up room, is depreciating, and self driving units are definitely in the near future.......why own a EV? Where I live 95 percent of my driving is within five miles of home & work. Since home & work are a half mile apart I can walk as easily as waiting for the future driverless Uber or Lyft self driver. With work from home now permanently part of the workforce, and it’s going to expand...........lots of “normal” things that have evolved over the last 125 years are going to go out the window. The future of transportation is going to be drastically different for 70 percent of miles driven in the next 30-50 years. The change won’t come as fast as many think, but it will get here in time. Other interesting questions......in my old age, if I have a LEV.......light electric vehicle that only goes 30 mph and a five mile range restriction from my home.........will I need insurance?  Will I need a drivers license? I can certainly see co-op neighborhood ownership of such small basic transportation units as we become elderly..........with so many people living to their 80’s and 90’s and the need for transportation at that age so minuscule............the one size fits all cost of a car, insurance, taxes that has been the norm for 100 years is going to change. I’m probably the right age to experience this shift in the next fifteen years.

Edited May 3, 2021 by edinmass (see edit history)

[SC38dls]

Ed, I agree on most of what you say above. My one point of contention is my use being so minuscule as I age. When I was younger I drove to work and sat at a desk for 10 -12 hours a day and drove home. Now I get to take the mutts out for a ride four or five times a week for a good hour plus drive!  
As I approach that time I my leave this world I hope it is like my grandfather passed. He left very peacefully in his sleep not yelling and screaming like the rest of the family in the car he was driving at 90 mph. 
Have fun 

dave s 

[wws944]

8 hours ago, ply33 said:

That is one thing I don’t like about DC fast charging for EVs: Needing to have an account with a charging network or with multiple charging networks.

 

I am not sure, but it seems that you might be able to use a credit or debit card to charge on some networks but it looks like the price is significantly higher than if you have an account so if you do much road tripping you will need an account with one or more networks like Electrify America, Charge Point, EVgo, Tesla, etc. So as you write “signing up with Electrify America is also pretty much a given.” But it shouldn’t have to be.

 

Only saving grace is that many/most people will be able to do all of their local travel by charging at home and will only need to use DC fast chargers when on longer trips.

 

I don’t need to sign up with Shell, Chevron, Arco, Mobile, etc. to buy gas. I can do it with any debit or credit card or even cash. This is not a technical requirement but forced on EV owners by the business models of the charging networks.

 

All largely true.  I've never seen a charging station that accepted cash.  Have seen and used a number of free ones though.

 

With Tesla's Superchargers, Tesla has ones credit card info on file anyway - from when you buy the car.  (Tesla doesn't have 'dealers' to sell you a car.  All purchases are done via their web site.  Kind an expensive "buy it now".)  When you use a Supercharger, just plug it in.  The car communicates with the mother ship and charging commences.  It couldn't be any easier.

 

In the non-Tesla world, EA is starting to support a Tesla-like Plug and Charge.  A few cars are starting to support it - like the Porsche Taycan and the new Ford Mustang Mach-E.  From the reviews it seems it is still a work in progress - sometimes it works, sometimes not.  And when it does work, it may not be on the desired rate plan.  Otherwise one uses some combination of phone app, RFID card, and/or credit card for identification and payment.

 

The reason I wrote “signing up with Electrify America is also pretty much a given.”, besides simply coverage, is that EA has been primarily installing 150 and 350 kW charging stations.  Where as the high speed DCFC stations folks like Chargepoint and EVgo have installed are still typically only 50-62 kW units.  The latter were fine when something like a Leaf only had a 24 kWh battery pack.  But most EVs now have battery packs that are in the 50-100 kWh range - and peoples expectations of fast charging have risen quite a bit.

 

One thing the e-Tron has been praised for is that it can support 150 kW charging rates over a large portion of its charging curve - only starting to taper when it gets above about 70% State of Charge.  So when on a road trip doing a mid-day charging stop, it can be obviously advantageous to use EA over the slower alternatives when possible.

 

@edinmass- you might be interested in a series of talks on youtube by Tony Seba where he speculates on the future of ridesharing.  Elon's "robotaxi" concept pretty much falls in line with Seba's vision.  Tesla has now delivered well over a million cars that Elon claims have enough sensors and compute power that they are capable of "full self drive" - though the software to fully do FSD has been elusive.  As FSD becomes more developed, a car owner could eventually let their car be used as part of the Robotaxi fleet.  Their car would then be earning money, and people who only need to drive occasionally would have even less need to own a car.  (I'd never put my car in the robotaxi fleet though.  Who would want some drunk throwing up in the back of their car?)

[padgett]

" rates will probably become regulated at the state and federal level." Wonder what the taxes will look like ? Gasoline is already taxed three different ways: road, marine, and aircraft. You know it is just a matter of time before a KW for an EV is a dollar.

[wws944]

2 minutes ago, padgett said:

" rates will probably become regulated at the state and federal level." Wonder what the taxes will look like ? Gasoline is already taxed three different ways: road, marine, and aircraft. You know it is just a matter of time before a KW for an EV is a dollar.

 

Here in California, the state is already adding a flat $150 to EVs annual registration fee to cover road maintenance.  Other states are doing similar.

 

Legitimate gripe for AACA members who eventually start to collect EVs will be that the $150/year fee will be a PITA for infrequently driven cars...

[ply33]

6 hours ago, edinmass said:

. . . Other interesting questions......in my old age, if I have a LEV.......light electric vehicle that only goes 30 mph and a five mile range restriction from my home.........will I need insurance?  Will I need a drivers license? . . .

 

In the beach resort town that I live in there are lots of neighborhood electric vehicles (NEV) and repurposed golf carts (mostly but not entirely electric) that are on the roads. Some have license plates on them, most don’t. Many are being driven by children, or at least individuals who look like children too young for a driver’s license to my aged eyes. Apparently if electric they are classified as “low speed vehicles" (LSV) and many states have specific rules for them.

 

Looking at my state’s motor vehicle code, they can only be driven on roads with speed limits at or below 35 MPH and must follow all traffic laws but are not required to be registered. Near as I can tell from the legalese in VEH-21251, the operator of a NEV/LSV needs to meet the same requirements as an operator of any other vehicle (i.e. needs to have a driver’s license).

 

Whether the law requires it or not, I sure would want to have sufficient insurance.

 

1 hour ago, wws944 said:

. . . One thing the e-Tron has been praised for is that it can support 150 kW charging rates over a large portion of its charging curve - only starting to taper when it gets above about 70% State of Charge.  So when on a road trip doing a mid-day charging stop, it can be obviously advantageous to use EA over the slower alternatives when possible. . .

The recently announced Hyundai Ioniq 5 and Kia EV6 can also take advantage of the higher charging rates. Availability in the US has been promised for late this year and they look interesting for someone who takes longer trips several times a year.

 

11 minutes ago, padgett said:

" rates will probably become regulated at the state and federal level." Wonder what the taxes will look like ? Gasoline is already taxed three different ways: road, marine, and aircraft. You know it is just a matter of time before a KW for an EV is a dollar.

 

At the federal level the gas tax “trust fund” has been empty for years (taxes collected less than money spent). The difference being made up by transfers from the general funds as Congress is loath to increase gas taxes.

 

The whole rational behind gas taxes started way back when cars were a luxury that could only be afforded by the well off. And those car owners wanted roads to be improved. The political compromise was that fuel taxes (not paid by poorer folk who didn’t own cars) would be directed to road construction and maintenance. That political compromise makes less sense when everyone has a car. Maybe charging from home will cause this to be rethought and highway funding would be straight from the general fund. After all, we don’t collect specific taxes for the military or most other “discretionary” spending, why should transportation be different?

 

4 minutes ago, wws944 said:

 

Here in California, the state is already adding a flat $150 to EVs annual registration fee to cover road maintenance.  Other states are doing similar.

 

Legitimate gripe for AACA members who eventually start to collect EVs will be that the $150/year fee will be a PITA for infrequently driven cars...

 

It will be interesting to see how this works our in the long term. At present California has a $0.35/gal tax on gasoline so that $150 represents the equivalent purchase of about 429 gallons of gas. The 1990 to 2010 corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) for light duty vehicles is/was 27.5 MPG which would work out to a bit under 12,000 miles/year for the same tax paid.

 

All taxes are in some way unfair. Paying for roads out of general funds means carless urban residents are penalized compared to suburban residents. A gas tax penalizes owners of inefficient vehicles. A fixed fee per year penalizes vehicles driven only a few miles a year. Anything you pick will have winners and losers so there will be political fights.

 

If you look at highway maintenance data, I think you will find that vehicle weight and speed are highly correlated with damage to highways. It would make sense to figure out a scheme where distance driven per year and vehicle weight were the factors in setting the fee/tax. Weight is easy but getting miles driven in a way that preserves liberty and privacy is not so easy.

 

Many states have required periodic safety or smog checks. Vehicle mileage could be checked at those times. Since modern odometers are not as easy to turn back, etc. as they once were maybe that would be sufficient for determining mileage. I could seen an automatic assumption of some high miles driven per year for any vehicle with a broken or tampered odometer.

[padgett]

Would wager some state or states will discover a way to tax "high consumption" homes - anything over 2KWh/month or a steady high rate for over 5 minutes.  Modern "smart" meters have that capacity. Could also require a second meter for anything new over 100A/1000 sq ft.

 

Since I built this house incandescents have given way to CFCs with 1/10 the consumption. My central AC is close to 200% more efficient than what was available back in '84. Big TVs and computer monitors and even computers are a fraction of the power consumption when my home was built. High consumption is momentary as compressor motors start up.

 

My point is that it would be easy to detect an EV charger in a home and add a "road and luxury" tax to the electric bill

 

Thanks to the pandemic, Florida is operating at a deficit. What can be expected to be a major tax source is being neglected. California may be the first or will not be far behind. It would be easy to say "EVs are not paying their fair share". See Florida Senate Bill 140 .

[TerryB]

When you look at taxes there are all kinds of possibilities, taxing a house for electric usage with the idea it “might” have an EV using electricity seems somewhat a stretch. Here in PA the Public Utilities Commission regulates a lot of charges that control prices and taxes on your electric bill.  Adding a tax for electric vehicle power usage would have to be put up for discussion with the legislature and court of public opinion.  That may not go over so well at election time.

 

 I can see the PA Department of Transportation looking to get more income from EVs to make up for the lack of gas tax, especially if you factor in EV semi trucks and the lack of fuel taxes from them.  I don’t see EV owner’s lobbying to avoid paying an equivalent gas tax to maintain the highways they are using. No highway =no travel. 
 

I do expect the roadside convenience stores to be the next ones to get involved in EV charging stations.  Many locally are turning into mini restaurants so stopping for food and getting some charge time for your EV is a natural fit.  Getting you to go inside and spend money is how they stay in business and EV charging fits that business model perfectly.

[TerryB]

In the interest of anything could be taxed, here’s a local (PA) tax bill from 1910.  Note that your ownership of a dog was subject to taxation. The fee of $0.50 for a male dog and $1.00 for a female dog.  This person’s tax was $0.75 and $0.50 was for owning a male dog.  Yes, my collecting covers many different areas of interest.

[padgett]

They taxed "money at interest" ?

 

I have no doubt Tallahasee would call it an "excess consumption fee". I already pay one rate below 1000 KWh/month and a higher rate above. Is no reason they could not add a third (higher) rate for above 2,000 KWh. I have automatic heating and cooling for 2,000 squ ft of house (rarely run anything beyond fans in garages) & max last year was under 2KWh (July-August).

 

When the gov decides there is money to be had without disturbing the bulk of the voters, they will find a way. This is the easiest and affects only those with "excess consumption".

 

Anyone care to estimate the monthly consumption of an EV ?

[ply33]

9 minutes ago, padgett said:

Anyone care to estimate the monthly consumption of an EV ?

Current efficient EVs get around 4 miles/kWh. The boxier compact SUV designs seem to be between 2.5 and 3.5 miles/kWh. No doubt the soon to be introduced pickups will be much worse. But taking 3 miles/kWh as a guess at average and going off the US average miles/year for a car of a bit under 12,000 miles you get 334 kWh/mo.

[Matt Harwood]

In my driveway now. Just took a quick drive around the block. This thing is silent and FAST!

 

[SC38dls]

And GOOD LOOKING!  

Have fun with it.