The very bottom of the Electric Vehicle supply chain. pic.twitter.com/SGC8q6DwNT
— Citizen Free Press (@CitizenFreePres) January 25, 2023
२६ जानेवारी, २०२३
"Driving 100 Miles in an EV Is Now More Expensive Than in an ICE/Deadhead miles and opportunity costs make electric vehicle ownership dramatically more expensive..."
"....than just your average car powered by a gas engine.... Combustion drivers pay about $11.29 per 100 miles on the road. EV drivers who charge up at home spend about $11.60 per 100 miles. The price difference is more dramatic for those who mainly recharge at stations. Frequent charging station users pay $14.40 per 100 miles.... [given] the deadhead miles to reach stations and the opportunity cost of waiting for vehicles to charge at stations. The difference highlights the lackluster coverage for electric vehicle charging infrastructure across the United States."
ADDED:
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१२१ टिप्पण्या:
EV are fine if you live in an urban area and aren't driving more than a hundred miles a day and can charge at home. I may get one as soon as I find one that fits my needs. They are quieter and since they don't need a transmission hump, I hope to get more leg room. However it will be my second car, the first will always be an ICE until EV are as easy to charge as it is a ICE and the vehicle can work properly in the extreme cold or extreme heat. I live in Florida so that won't be a problem for me.
Obviously, the article posts two data points. However, the point is well made: electricity isn't free, but how much is it? Gas isn't free, either. But it's a case of doing the math for you (I know, old-school where they taught math).
The more that these comparisons are made (MPGe is so stupid only a government could come up with it), the more we can understand that EVs are not a full-on solution.
Yes, but the EV is so virtuous. It’s a sign for the world.
You have to excavate around 500,000 cubic yards of the earth’s surface to get enough raw materials for the rare earth minerals required for an EV battery. Then you have to have large brine pools to separate the minerals. The mining is done by large electric shovels and the materials are hauled in huge diesel-powered trucks that get about 0.3 MPG. None of this is green.
In addition, old batteries can’t be easily recycled or there would be startups all across America. No, the EV isn’t green at all.
I don’t care if people want to buy and drive EVs. Just don’t try to blow smoke up my ass telling me you’re saving the planet….you’re not. Oh, and don’t make me subsidize your purchase.
According to the "Anderson Economic Group," a consulting firm based in [check's notes] Lansing, Michigan.
At this point you might as well. Have you seen the efficiency of the latest gen of Honda generators!?
Just don't let Greta See. "HOW DARE YOU!"
Most people who had an EV in addition to and ICE use the EV for their local travel and their ICE for long distances. The typical use of EV does not include deadheads, charging station costs and waiting at stations.
It's inevitable that a set of policies that limits electricity supply and dramatically increases electricity demand will cause much higher prices. The nuclear power alternative is obvious.
Road & Track literally just published an article discussing how good Tesla's supercharging network is.
"Deadhead miles" sounds so... trippy.
Wait until EVs start having to pay their share of the road taxes that come out of the price of a gallon of gas for ICEs.
EVs will make sense, in some markets, when fusion is a reality. EVs weigh more, and damage to roads in proportion to the cube of the weight of the vehicle. this is maybe not a big deal for EV cars, but EV trucks empty weigh the same as an ICE truck loaded with freight.
Forcing EVs on us reminds me of when they forced those twisty bulbs full of mercury on us just a couple of years before LED bulbs completely solved the problem in a much cleaner way. Oh, and BTW, they lied to us about the lifespan of those twisty bulbs too. They have no problem lying to us at all whatsoever.
So the Jalopnik story blogged by Althouse is based on a report from the Anderson Economic Group.
And that, right there, is a big deal.
What is the Anderson Economic Group? It's really Patrick Anderson. So who is Patrick Anderson? Well, he is a Michigan guy with whom I am quite familiar. His line of work that seems to pay the bills for him is expert witness testimony in civil litigation involving corporate economic damages. But he's not exactly an economist. Not an academic economist, certainly. He's got a University of Michigan undergrad degree in Political Science (he got his after I got mine) and a Masters' in Public Policy.
He is well-known, especially here in Michigan, where he is a reliable go-to media source for conservative talk radio hosts and most particularly the conservative Mackinac Center for public policy. He's a first- (or at worst, second-) tier Republican political player in our state. He has more axes to grind with Democrats and progressive public policy initiatives than you can imagine.
So while this story started out as one of great interest to me, it fell apart the moment I saw "Anderson Economic Group." Going out nationally and internationally, I suspect that few will read it and understand the slant of Patrick Anderson. I am guessing that Althouse blogged this without understanding who and what Patrick Anderson is.
And while I am doubting all things "Patrick Anderson," I'd actually like to see this study performed and replicated by an academic economics department with a lot more nonpartisan credibility.
I used to have a good bit of affinity for Patrick Anderson. He's a solid budget hawk fiscal conservative. And he regularly makes a nice appearance as a clam-voiced conservative voice of reason. He was an advisor to Mitt Romney. And he's done work with one of the great heroes of the pre-Trump MI-GOP, Richard McLellan. (A personal hero to me too.) But Anderson lost me in the Trump era. And to be fair to him, he does seem to try to avoid a lot of Trumpism. But he can't, in his line of work, being a professional Republican pundit in the 2020's.
Here's the .url for his his Mackinac Center bio. (Viewers are advised in advance that he is photographed wearing a bow tie in case that triggers you.)
https://www.mackinac.org/about/authors/19
.......maybe electric cars are a waste of money??
The EV will always be a luxury virtue signaling machine. Although the only car I saw in Los Angeles in 2016 with a Trump bumper sticker was a Tesla. Probably just a contrarian.
"It’s easy to conclude that owning an EV and recharging at home is cheaper than using a car powered by an internal combustion engine. "
Not with how high electricity costs are getting. Let's go Brandon!
One thing they leave out in these comparisons is that ICE cars are 'contributing' to the cost of building and maintaining roads, via the gasoline taxes paid to state and federal governments. EVs are not making any such contribution, at this time.
Ultimately, if EVs become the dominant or even a more significant species on the road, someone's going to have to make up that difference. Especially because EVs are so heavy (battery), they beat the hell out of roadways.
With purchase subsidies, road-tax exemption, subsidies for building charging stations, etc., the government has managed to destroy the function of prices, which is to rationalize the allocation of resources in the economy. When there's so much hidden distortion in the cost of things, prices don't work nearly as well. Which, of course, is what the government hopes will happen.
You got to give alternative means a chance. EV are in their infancy. One aspect of EV that has me rooting for them is how less complicated they are compared to an ICE vehicle. A lot more critical components can go wrong and often do with ICE. A new transmission goes for over $6,000 for example. EV Batteries will get better; charge time will go down and nuclear power plants will come online. In the meantime, a Toyota hybrid gives users 50 mgp.
The only rational use-case for most non-Tesla EV automobiles in terms of time and cost is "charge at home" and "home every night." There are, of course exceptions that apply to a minority of users.
This also applies to commercial vehicles -- UPS being a perfect example.
Elon Musk figured this out a long time ago -- he sells chargers for home and business and installed a fleet of Superchargers that are well located and charge Tesla vehicles quickly.
The most common semi-rational-use-case for an EV is to not drive it very much, still charging at home but with an inexpensive and slow charger.
More charging station coverage is just a call for pork-barreling. It does nothing about the opportunity cost of sitting at an EV charging station every hundred miles or so.
It takes, what, 3 minutes to fill a 15-gallon tank of gasoline? EPA says a gallon of gas is equivalent to 33.7 kW-hr. Suppose we accept that:
(33.7 kW-hr per gallon) x (15 gallons) / (3 minutes) x (60 minutes per hr) = 10,100 kW.
Where is there an electric car that can charge at 10,000 kW? A home charger draws less than 10 kW. I can't find evidence of any charging station above 400 kW.
A Tesla Supercharger takes 9 minutes to recharge 60 miles of travel. My car with the 15 gallon tank, getting 30 miles per gallon, "charges" in 3 minutes, about, from empty. 2 gallons' worth is 0.4 minutes. You spend 20 times as long charging the Tesla as you do pumping gas, for the same distance traveled. (Consistent with my calculation above, as 10,000 kW / 400 kW = 25 times as long to charge.) More charging stations does not fix that.
People are beginning to realize what a scam all this Green New Deal and CAGW stuff is.
The automakers are getting into EVs because the gross profit is much more than with ICE vehicles. Look at Tesla's numbers.
And, of course, there is the government rebate.
People don't want EVs at scale; niche product.
I would imagine a lot of the charging stations available, especially the quick charge ones, are still subsidized to a great extent by the car vendors and the government, so I think it very likely going forward that costs of charging are going to rise significantly from here, especially given we don't actually have the infrastructure or generating capacity to charge all the EVs that people are predicting are going to be sold in the next decade.
For you WI and MN people, the Center for the American Experiment has estimated that net zero carbon will triple (!) rates and lead to blackouts in January.
I've told OPPD and NPPD about this, but the Directors are indifferent. They will force ratepayers to pay any price and bear any burden in their pursuit of net zero.
Tim:
Some states have started to make EVs pay more to license.
Downside of EV and Hybrid proliferation is the least as of taxes from the sale of gasoline. In the Infrastructure bill, a pilot program is proposed to charge drivers a fee per-mile.
From the link:
"Why does the infrastructure package include a vehicle miles traveled fee?
According to the infrastructure package, the goal of the vehicle miles travel fee is “to test the feasibility of a road usage fee.” Another goal, according to the infrastructure bill, is “to conduct public education and outreach to increase public awareness regarding the need for user-based alternative revenue mechanisms for surface transportation programs.”"
[snip]
"Is a vehicle miles driven fee a good idea?
There are pros and cons of a vehicle miles driven fee:
Vehicle miles driven: advantages
Suppporters say that the advantages of a vehicle miles driven fee include:
A vehicle miles driven fee could help raise revenue for essential transportation and infrastructure projects;
From a fairness perspective, both passenger and commercial vehicles would pay the vehicle miles tax; and
If a vehicle miles tax replaces a gasoline tax, then drivers would be taxed based on how much they drive, rather than pay at the pump.
Vehicle miles driven: disadvantages
Opponents say that the disadvantages of a vehicle miles driven fee include:
Privacy concerns, namely that the government could track citizens’ movements, including where and when they drive;
Administratively difficult, since every driver in the U.S. would need a device installed in their vehicle to track how many miles they drive; and
Disparate impact, as rural drivers tend to drive more, on average, and could therefore pay more than their urban and suburban counterparts."
I dated to pose the question on Facebook about the difficulty in a state-based program when you live in an area like ours where several states border the same locale. In ours, there are four: PW, MD,WV and VA. Would PA tax drivers who work, say, in Winchester VA for miles driven outside PA?
For asking that question, the FB fact checkers/AI bots or whoever flagged my statement as misleading. I objected as it absolutely is a valid question at the state level.
At the Federal level, people who commute to Canada or who travel there, as we did last summer on the Trans-Canada Highway, could be taxed for miles driven outside the US. The only equitable way for either tax authority to assess tax owed would have to be by GPS tracking. Then again, maybe that's a feature, not a bug.
"And while I am doubting all things "Patrick Anderson,"
LOL! We do the same thing when we see "Chuck".
What I don't understand is why use of an EV is perceived as green. I wonder if many of the people who congratulate themselves on driving EVs -- or try to mandate them for all of us -- believe that electricity is itself a separate energy source that somehow comes from magic. Obviously, it's not.
In 2021, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, 61 percent of the electricity generated in the US came from fossil fuels, of which 38.4 percent came from natural gas (horrors!), 21.9 percent came from coal (more horrors!) and the remainder from petroleum. The remaining 40 percent is divided almost evenly between nuclear power and all renewables lumped together.
So, all these virtue-signalling people are using mostly fossil fuels to get around -- and when you add in the human and environmental costs related to the batteries, your EV is holier than my ICE, why, again, exactly?
You can't swing a dead cat in my area without hitting an EV, about 90% Tesla and 10% Porsche.
But who swings dead cats these days?
That said, I am starting my EV research as we might add one to complement our ICE vehicle.
Looking at Tesla, Audi, Ford, and maybe Porsche...
The ad-hominem talking point blast fax obviously reached a couple of commenters here, Chuck, the Life Long Republican is on the case blasting "conservative" outlets. What I don't see is any actual refutation of the argument. But then a denunciation is always enough to keep liberal cult members like Chuck in line, so an actual refutation is not required.
Funny to read the personal attacks on the data source. The math isn’t hard, but apparently it is harder than simply hating others.
’Wait until EVs start having to pay their share of the road taxes that come out of the price of a gallon of gas for ICEs.’
No fair introducing reality to the virtue signaling crowd, as it may interrupt the propensity to smell their own farts.
The fact is that hybrids are better than both. Fifty MPG. No range anxiety.
The lefties stepped on their own dick on this one. If they wanted EV adoption they should have promoted that EVs have fewer moving parts, quieter and the family truckster can blow the doors off the supercars at the stop light or the dragstrip. Instead they has to make them a political football.
Were they really trying to kill them all along?
Blogger Michael K said...
The EV will always be a luxury virtue signaling machine.
Ivory Tower liberals love any type of virtue signal. It has to be some for of deep internal insecurity.
And it's amazing how they can ignore reality. EV's have and environmental and human impact.
First thing I thought of watching the swarm of people in the mining video was that must have been what building the Pyramids looked like.
"Wait until EVs start having to pay their share of the road taxes that come out of the price of a gallon of gas for ICEs."
I own an EV and the numbers seemed very fishy to me. I couldn't make them match my experience. So I dug into the report and still couldn't figure out how they were getting such a high number for EV costs. And then I spotted it. The calculations are for Michigan, which has an EV tax. If you live in a state without an EV tax, the lack of gas taxes makes them a lot less expensive than an ICE.
It is literally impossible to replace gasoline cars with electric cars without eliminating a massive number of automobiles from the road. There are not enough resources to create the batteries necessary, and the electrical grid cannot handle that many cars. To be fair, the electric grids in some areas (see California) are unable to produce enough electricity now, much less after a massive increase in demand. If the solution also insists on solar and wind power, which are notoriously erratic, then it is going to be a complete disaster. It borders on comic book supervillain scheme territory.
Note that in some circles, that is a feature, not a bug, which they want you to eat.
...and you on the left shouldn't count on 'they're too expensive' as an argument, either. The rules of manufacturing apply to EVs too.- per unit cash flow is larger on luxury vehicles so that's what you focus on first. The infrastructure will be built out, costs will drop as R&D is recovered, performance will improve.
Well, take any cost comparisons with a handful of electrons. Still, the benefits of EVs are inevitably overstated. If they were superior, and the public did prefer greener, or at least the illusion of greener, they would not need direct subsidies at taxpayer expense, or exemptions from road taxes, or subsidies for new charging stations.
EVs are a prog project. Because their use will depend on centralized delivery of power, the ultimate destination is government control of transportation and personal mobility.
The bottom of the EV supply chain is indeed a mostly unacknowledged prog nightmare. But not having the chain might make life at the bottom even worse.
A niche product to empathize with secular pride and prejudice.
Thanks Chuck for that info. Doesn't make Anderson wrong, but his conclusion should be viewed with more than one grain of salt. Speaking of electricity and salt, when an electrical charge is passed through a salt solution, the sodium separates from the chloride. Maybe Anderson's report will separate when others torture it with some electricity.
The picture catches it ALL.
THIS, This is the future in store for all of us that aren't members of the Inner Party.
Sure, EV's are more expensive to operate than IC's
Sure, EV's are WORSE for the environment tan IC's
Heck! EV's produce More CO2 than IC's once you add it all up..
That's why EV's are only a stopgap, on the way to the future.
The future of NO vehicles, no movement, no freedom.
In the Immortal Words, of John McClane "Welcome to the party, Pal!"
Can't wait for the changes in physics which allow batteries to work as well at -10F as at 70F, and obviate the need for defrosters and heaters in cold and mountainous regions. Golf carts work great for driving around your neighborhood in a warm climate, too.
But. finally we get an actual rebuttal of the numbers, and it turns out that making him wrong requires that EVs get a free ride in terms of the wear and tear they cause on roads, on top of all of the other subsidies.
Hows that high speed California rail project going? Dont hear much about that these days. Billions wasted. Smart people making decisions. But California has a neat new plan. Tax you even after you leave.
Hotel California
Im not taking credit for that.
I will never drive electric. Too many hassles, the batteries can be death traps and.......thats enough for me right there.
Are there any decent studies out there revealing how well EVs operate in northern states bordering Canada during the winter?
I rented a model 3 for a month. Even did an 1800 mile roundtrip in it.
They're way off on the cost of charging at home, and using Tesla superchargers, at worst case in my area, is less than 10 cents per mile of range.
It really depends on how you will use the car. If your less than 100 miles per day, then an EV can work, but cross country it's far less time-eficient.
"Michael K said...
The EV will always be a luxury virtue signaling machine."
Nope. Across all manufacturers they will get a large portion of all markets. More and more lower costs EV's are in the market or coming soon.
They will also be the dominant player in fleet sales, with low operating cost (so many fewer parts), more reliability, and the predictable ability to charge them every night. Think government cars, plumbers, electricians, HVAC, stuff like that. They tend to stay in a fairly local area, make at most a handful of stops a day, and then back to the shop or motor pool. Even local delivery services like Amazon.
The Wise Men journeyed to Bethlehem bearing gifts of cobalt, nickel and lithium.
As I've said here before, when I visit my mother and brother I borrow my brother's Tesla. Having driven it for a total of months by now, I have never once needed a charging station. You plug it in at night at home, done. You literally never need to think about it at all.
For a long trip, fine. But don't compare apples and oranges. For most EV users, you are charging at home almost all the time. It is still cheaper, and way more convenient.
I thought a Tesla purchase came with free charging at the Tesla chargers.
"I got a restless fever
Burnin' in my brain
Got to keep ridin' forward
Can't spoil the game"
"Jersey Fled said...
The fact is that hybrids are better than both. Fifty MPG. No range anxiety."
The issue with hybrids is because of space constraints, both the gas and electric motors are underpowered.
@effinayright
https://www.zerohedge.com/technology/how-did-evs-handle-americas-arctic-blast
Some fairly recent anecdotal data. According to the link, it compounds issues most people already new about, but overall they beat expectations.
There is an upfront cost, a progressive cost, and an end-of-life cost, and, of course, the single/central/monopolistic price distortion field that distorts market assessments of viability.
In the meantime, a Toyota hybrid gives users 50 mgp.
The first 10,000 miles in my Hyundai Elantra, pure ICE, bigger than a Toyota Hybrid (I think. Depends on the model I suppose) I averaged over 40mpg.
I routinely drive across Puerto and back (difficult in an EV) and average 50-55mpg. About 200-250 miles, 2/3 freeway, 1/3 secondary with some city streets. Also crossing a 3,000' mountain range.
Cost of gas per mile at current $3.36/gal is about 6.7 cents
Pictures on request
The Tesla is about the same size as my Elantra overall. No roomier or notably more luxe inside. It costs almost twice as much ($50m+ vs $24m for the Elantra)
Someone mentioned the cost of replacing a transmission. I've owned Japanese and Korean cars exclusively since 1985. I normally put 150-200m miles on them and sell them to a family member. I've never replaced a tranny or an engine and as far as I know, nobody else who has owned them has replaced one either.
And they are all front wheel drive, so no transmission hump.
John Henry
Similarly, solar panels come with a shadow of slavery across them
90% are made in Chinese concentration camps
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/k8jjtY4vvAs?feature=share
Looked like a trailer from one of Cecil B. DeMilles' movies featuring "a cast of thousands."
"Are there any decent studies out there revealing how well EVs operate in northern states bordering Canada during the winter?"
Until I can get to Boston from Burlington, VT on a cold and snowy day on a single charge, I. will never depend on an EV for my transport. Even that is a compromise. My car, which is very, even extremely comfortable, can get do the entire round trip on a single tank of gas, whatever the weather.
Some numbers.
Average electric rate in the US as a whole in December 2022 was $0.165/kWh. A Tesla Model 3 has a battery storage of between 50-82 kWh. Assuming the battery never discharges below 20% capacity, this means an average refill cost of between $6.60 and $10.82, which gets you between 180/330 miles based on a cursory search of actual owner reported ranges.
Not bad compared to gas at all, but this is for charging at home. Superchargers, though, can't be cost at residential rates simply due to the added infrastructure and service requirements. Right now Tesla does subsidize these stations for their buyers, but that can't continue indefinitely. I would imagine that the actual cost at a supercharger is probably in the range of 13-25 dollars/full recharge at given electric rates, but the average user isn't seeing this full cost yet.
Now, EVs do have significantly lower maintenance costs, but does this hold over the lifetime of an average car? I don't know. It will if the batteries don't have to be replaced during the lifetime of the car (say 300K miles). We will know more in about 5 more years.
The funny thing about that video on the mining of cobalt (I am assuming). There are more efficient ways of getting all that mineral out of that pit, but it would put all those people out of work except for, maybe 10 of them.
As far as I know, Teslas (for example) use Lithium-Ion batteries. Most Lithium is found in Australia via ore mining (not presumably done by hand by children) and in Chile's salt flats (they have a method of extracting it from the underground lakes). There are environmental concerns in Chile due to how the extraction effects other parts of the ecosystem including rainwater, but nothing conclusive has been proven.
The poor child miners in the video are most likely mining cobalt for you cell phone.
Most car companies are moving away from cobalt use. Tesla batteries contain less than 5% cobalt and cobalt can be placed by nickel or phosphate.
EVs really aren't the answer. The closest to the right answer for electric cars was the Chevrolet Bolt. 100% electric drive, you could charge at home from a wall outlet, but it had an onboard ICE engine that could charge the batteries on the go. So recharging on road trio meant filling up with gas, no muss, no fuss, and no 1/2 hour wait to get back on the highway. Of course, that doesn't address the environmental damage and high costs of batteries, etc. So still less than ideal. EVs are only a thing because governments are pushing them. They require subsidies for the buyers and economic threats against the car companies that don't join in the virtue signaling circle jerk. The fact that they are being pushed by the same people pushing for a more expensive and less reliable electric grid make them a doubly bad idea.
I don’t care if people want to buy and drive EVs. Just don’t try to blow smoke up my ass telling me you’re saving the planet….you’re not. Oh, and don’t make me subsidize your purchase.
1/26/23, 9:36 AM
THIS^^^^
Hybrids are good - except they too have a battery made out of cobalt. and when it goes ka-put- big $$$$$
The entire "alternative energy" thing is rife with lousy math, at all levels and at all points along the line.
If you ever sat down and did a full-scale cost/benefit analysis with most of the wind energy crap, you'll find that the people wanting it leave out a massive swathe of the actual energy and monetary costs, then double-down on the fraud by assuming production values for their installations that simply haven't proven out in the real world. The only thing that keeps them going are the subsidies they've frauded us all into paying, and the "green" mandates they get put into law.
You factor it all in, and you're really better using that natural gas that went into making the lime for the cement in their foundations as heating fuel in the wintertime. Because that, at least, is on-demand and will be there when you need it.
An acquaintance of mine was a retired Boeing engineer. He had done the research and had all the spreadsheets showing the inherent fraud and insane assumptions for all the various and sundry "renewable" energy plans. I have yet to see anything that refutes his work; you can still find the same insane and wildly optimistic assumptions laid out in all the documentation they use to tout "green", and there's yet to be a single bit of accountability for the fraud.
I guarantee you that if you ever ran a forensic accounting process, an honest one, on any of these projects? They'd turn up massive amounts of outright fraud. These massive windmill and solar panel installations are supposed to be producing energy, but when you go drive by them, they aren't turning, even in periods where there's a lot of wind. You look at the solar panel issue, and the only damn way they pay their way is when they're subsidized by the government and/or represent forced power buy-backs for the utilities, at far above market rates. The whole industry is a scam.
It's the same with electric cars; subtract the tax credits and the subsidies, the whole thing will cave in. It'll really cave in when you start charging market rates and fees for the electricity that charges them, because when you get down to it, the use of a fossil-fueled power plant to charge an electric really only represents a scam to avoid paying the various and sundry taxes and fees levied on ICE fuels; the same amount of carbon is going into the air, but nobody is paying the taxes on it.
The only people that buy the bullshit are the innumerate and the brainwashed. Everyone else who looks into even the slightly sub-surface layers behind the propaganda winds up going "What the hell? This ain't what they promised..."
Replace the word ICE with horse and EV for automobile and you can hear how ridiculous you guys sound. Nobody wants to drive to the gas station or get oil changed or belts replaced. My problem with ICE is that is an old crappy, inconvenient technology. Think about how the rest of society has changed, and yet, the very best we can do is set off tiny explosions in metal cannisters? In 2023, ICE almost feels like steam punk.
For me, it has nothing to do with the environment. ICE cars are some of the crappiest consumer goods and there is no way to fix that. We need something better.
Liberal dogma under attack?
Here comes LifeLong Republican Chuck, furiously riding to the rescue!
It is so sadly pathetic how transparent he is.
As for the topic: I live, let's see... about 50 miles from the closest charger. Yet leftists want to ban ICE cars.
tim in vermont said...
The ad-hominem talking point blast fax obviously reached a couple of commenters here, Chuck, the Life Long Republican is on the case blasting "conservative" outlets. What I don't see is any actual refutation of the argument. But then a denunciation is always enough to keep liberal cult members like Chuck in line, so an actual refutation is not required.
I didn't denounce the Anderson "study" because I don't have a basis to do that.
I do have a basis to be suspicious of Patrick's motives, and I tried to be somewhat specific about that. And I offered my decades of experience in MI GOP circles as a basis. Good, bad, ugly and indifferent.
I actually hoped that I could trigger some of you maniacs by mentioning that Patrick was a Mitt Romney advisor. That one seems to have been overlooked. Pity.
So if anyone is still under the illusion that Patrick Anderson does serious, academic economic studies, here he is caught in a very similar public controversy last year:
https://electrek.co/2021/10/27/detroit-daily-hypes-then-tempers-evs-cost-more-than-gas-cars-report/
World Economic Forum says the future of cars is in the cloud
"Cars will become ‘connected computers on wheels’
By Kevin Stocklin
January 20, 2023 Updated: January 25, 2023
The era of cars as the ultimate tool for personal freedom and mobility will, if the future the World Economic Forum (WEF) envisions comes to pass, soon be over. Cars will be something you ask to borrow, and the cloud will be taking the wheel.
Speaking in Davos, Qualcomm CEO Cristiano Amon said that “the car is becoming a connected computer on wheels.” Like cellphones, he said, “everything around us is becoming connected intelligence.”
The automotive industry is becoming part of the “industrial to digital transformation,” Amon said. “The technology transformation in the industry is electrification and is digital.”
Increasingly, car makers are partnering with tech companies such as Qualcomm and IBM.
Tech visionaries say that computerized cars will be integrated into the cloud, where they can be monitored and controlled by a centralized network that can prevent collisions, alert you about road conditions, and manage traffic.
While much of this technology already exists via cellphones and some cars already track your gaze to alert you when your eyes stray from the road, the next step is linking the car’s systems together with manufacturers and other vehicles and allowing for continuous third-party tracking.
These developments are moving in lockstep with efforts to compel consumers to buy electric vehicles, including laws in California, Washington, and many European countries to ban the sale of gas-fueled cars by 2035 or sooner. Many carmakers, such as GM and Volkswagen, have stated that their entire fleets will soon be electric.
The WEF has suggested a simple solution for this: Don’t buy a car. In a report titled “3 Circular Economy Approaches to Reduce Demand for Critical Metals,” the WEF states that the average car in the UK is driven only 4 percent of a given day, and therefore consumers shouldn’t buy cars but rather borrow them.
“Car sharing platforms such as Getaround and BlueSG have already seized that opportunity to offer vehicles where you pay per hour used,” the WEF report states. “To enable a broader transition from ownership to usership, the way we design things and systems need to change too.”
These changes include phone app keys that allow multiple users and personal profiles that can distinguish between use for work and for leisure."
More at the link, but the short version is: what gilbar said.
Not to mention that no one tells owners of ICE vehicles that they should limit refilling their gas tanks because of high temperatures, the way California “requested” EV owners limit recharging because their electronic grid system was too highly stressed by a warm spell.
"and the opportunity cost of waiting for vehicles to charge at stations."
This is my big bugaboo with EVs. I'm getting on in years. I don't want to spend what's left of my time here wasting away at recharging stations. And to add insult to injury, the climate benefits of EVs is bullshit, even if you believe the climate crisis nonsense.
Chuck said...
"...a clam-voiced conservative voice of reason."
What is the sound of one voice clamming?
I've talked before about how I think Elon is going to scale up the Starlink satellite systems, which are powered by solar from microwatts (data) to megawatts (power).
One of the advantages of that is that a lot less distribution infrastructure is needed. Power will come to your city or even neighborhood direct from satellite without the need for hundreds of miles of HV transmission.
I even, sort of jokingly, said he would beam power directly to cars. Lots of problems there with hitting a moving target.
But it struck me the other day, why not beam power down to service stations with large numbers of chargers. It would take the cars almost completely off the grid. I don't know what, if any, economies of scale exist in earth power stations. Would a single gigawatt scale receiver be more economical than a thousand MW scale receivers? Especially considering the reduced distribution network required by the multiple MW receivers.
John Henry
Ficta did math and was able to figure out the flaw in the data. Again the math is easy. There are only 3 numbers and they give you one of them 100. The others are price per unit and range per unit. So $3.50 per gallon and say 30 mpg comes up with $11.66 for 100 miles. Tesla says a Model Y does 100 miles at 28kWh and the average price in US per kWh is $.169 thus $4.73 per 100 miles. No personal attacks necessary to find an issue. But the $3.50 per gallon of gas includes state and local taxes while the $.169 kWh doesn’t include taxes.
Blogger Gabriel said..."A Tesla Supercharger takes 9 minutes to recharge 60 miles of travel. My car with the 15 gallon tank, getting 30 miles per gallon, "charges" in 3 minutes, about, from empty. 2 gallons' worth is 0.4 minutes. You spend 20 times as long charging the Tesla as you do pumping gas, for the same distance traveled. (Consistent with my calculation above, as 10,000 kW / 400 kW = 25 times as long to charge.) More charging stations does not fix that.". (emphasis added)
Exactly. Just as adding more windmills/solar-collectors does not fix the problem of intermittent wind and sun.
Not an ounce of thought has gone into this entire edifice.
in 2017 while on vacation in the UK, my rental car happened to be a Toyota Rav-4 hybrid which was also diesel. Iwas getting 55 mpg without trying and when I concentrated (coasting, etc) Iwas getting close to 70. Consequently, when I needed to get a new car the following year in I went for the USA version of the hybrid. Gasoline instead of diesel makes a big difference as I manage to get 35 mpg unless i go the interstate and drive at 70 mph which drops my mpg to about 30. The point of this anecdote is that my registration renewal runs about 3 times as high to compensate for the road taxes i would be paying on the gasoline I'm not buying.
i know there are non hybrids that get superior mileage and aren't paying the elevated rate for registration, but i must admit i feel morally superior to them because...hybrid. For that matter, I feel superior to all of the commenters on here and i'm able to do that without adopting any of their lunatic positions. Best of both worlds, baby, moral vanity and common sense.
"You got to give alternative means a chance. EV are in their infancy."
EVs were being developed in the 1800s. They've had plenty of chances.
"One aspect of EV that has me rooting for them is how less complicated they are compared to an ICE vehicle. A lot more critical components can go wrong and often do with ICE. A new transmission goes for over $6,000 for example."
And yet with that benefit, EVs are still not competitive without a buttload of government subsidies and mandates? Imagine that.
Intermittent/unreliable/low yield/Green energy.
Today is a planned power outage where I live. No problem, work's gotta get done. Appreciate it. However, during a recent heat wave, our aspirational Governor ordered PG&E to cut back electricity overnight for a few nights 'for the sake of the grid'. Sounds reasonable. Except that's exactly when EV owners re-charge their cars. Beyond the inconvenience, it illustrates an unprecedented control of a citizen's mobility. And they want everyone to be put in that vise?
I am posting this on my rechargeable phone.
I followed the picture back and found the following: Cobalt Red:
How the blood of the Congo Powers Our Lives.
Residential customers do not pay utility demand charges. They are baked into the per kwh rate that we pay. But virtually all commercial and industrial customers pay them in addition to the per kwh charge.
A demand charge is a monthly fee based on the highest usage in any 15 minute period during a month. EV charging stations are going to hit businesses where i really hurts, in the wallet
https://betterenergy.org/blog/demand-charges-and-dcfc/
John Henry
Residential customers do not pay utility demand charges. They are baked into the per kwh rate that we pay. But virtually all commercial and industrial customers pay them in addition to the per kwh charge.
A demand charge is a monthly fee based on the highest usage in any 15 minute period during a month. EV charging stations are going to hit businesses where i really hurts, in the wallet
https://betterenergy.org/blog/demand-charges-and-dcfc/
John Henry
Yancey Ward said...
"And while I am doubting all things "Patrick Anderson,"
LOL! We do the same thing when we see "Chuck".
Gosh, mere "doubting" would be such a relief. That would be easy for me.
What's more concerning for me are all of the vile, off-topic personal attacks, the defamatory accusations and the veiled personal threats.
Daddy Binx said...
Chuck said...
"...a clam-voiced conservative voice of reason."
What is the sound of one voice clamming?
"calm-voiced"
It might have been my typo; it might also have been (more likely) a different typo that turned into "clam-voiced" because, as you note, "clam" is a word.
The great Steven Koonin points out that the overwhelming advantage of gas is its “density.” A huge amount of btu’s in a relatively small, efficient, portable medium. That isn’t going to change. At least until some practical form of portable nuke comes along. No time soon.
"a clam-voiced conservative"
That amuses me so much.
When I was in law school, hand-writing notes, so often I'd mangle the spelling of "claim" as "clam." I laughed to myself, all the strange visuals — What is this clam all about? Why did the plaintiff bring this clam?
"Clam" for "calm" is also hilarious.
Ann Althouse said...
"a clam-voiced conservative"
That amuses me so much.
When I was in law school, hand-writing notes, so often I'd mangle the spelling of "claim" as "clam." I laughed to myself, all the strange visuals — What is this clam all about? Why did the plaintiff bring this clam?
"Clam" for "calm" is also hilarious.
Now that, I have definitely done in pre-filing drafts of pleadings where I was the typist. And I've seen it in pleadings that actually got filed.
I'd like to see an editing feature, Althouse. But in the realm of unintended consequences, we'd never have had this exchange because I did see "clam" early on and would have corrected it.
@Chuck: So the Jalopnik story blogged by Althouse is based on a report from the Anderson Economic Group.
Excellent example of playing the man instead of the ball.
I spent a few minutes looking at the comments to the Jalopnik article. Indeed, it looks as if AEG may have skewed the numbers a bit in favor of ICE, but that conclusion itself is dependent upon some finicky entering arguments.
One that AEF omitted, oddly, is that where a specific model is available in both EV and ICE versions, the EV is about 25% more expensive. (2022 BMW 3-series starts at $41,000. Expected i3 cost, $50,000.). Not only does $10k buy a lot of maintenance, it also is a lot more depreciation.
Speaking of maintenance. Replacing an engine on a normal (ie, non-German) ICE car with a reman'd unit runs about $4,000 (including labor). A new EV battery (excluding labor) starts at $10,000, and heads north from there. This is a good time to talk about range. EV ranges are the miles to the car stops moving. But if you want to delay that $10+ grand replacement cost as much as possible, you won't run your EV below 20% charge remaining. And maximum charge, unlike a gas tank, gets smaller every year. (My five year old iPhone, with an LiH battery, has only 83% of its original capacity.)
But wait, there's more! An EV is about 25% heavier than its ICE counterpart — that means more tire and suspension wear. Never mind the increased beating roads are going to take, as if NE US roads aren't already cratered enough.
Also, as others have mentioned above, almost everywhere EV's get off the hook on gas taxes. On average, state and federal gas taxes make up 15-20% of the cost of a gallon of gas.
At a very superficial level of analysis, AEG might be skewing things a bit, as most commenters pointed out. But go much deeper than that, and start going very sideways for EV's.
And that's before considering infrastructure. My car gets about 400 miles range in less than five minutes at a pump. I'd guess the average interstate gas station has sixteen pumps. Given that it takes about 30 minutes to get 200 miles into an EV, an all EV fleet would need about 180 charge points per station.
Anyway, Chuck, back to playing the man instead of the ball. Don't. If AEG got it wrong, be specific as to how. In the process, you might find some things *you* haven't taken on board.
Lem said..."nuclear power plants will come online."...
The last Vogtle units (of Southern Co.) in Georgia are way behind schedule and way over budget. So you are telling us new nuclear plants will be permitted, built and placed in service in the near future? You be a clown!
" do have a basis to be suspicious of Patrick's motives,"
Yes, your contribution to the discussion has been weighed, measured, and found wanting. Other posters pointed out that Michigan has a milage tax on EVs which explains the result, but you did contribute a funny typo aside from your ad hominem recitation of liberal talking points.
Has any manufacturer demonstrated the EV resistance to EMP? I see references to Tradesmen's vehicle duties supplanted by EV. Seen the F150 Ford's towing range evaluated in REAL terms. Maybe fit for kayakers and pizza deliveries. Three quarter ton and one ton vans are used by trades for a reason. How about a landscaper pulling a couple riders and a walk behind or two?
How much do you think a plumber is hauling in there? Sober up and get real. Greens are religious fanatics.
If you are an urbanite and really care about the environment and global justice, should you really even own a car?
..Speaking of maintenance..
Here's a Serious Question for y'all
not including oil and oil filters.. what was the last car maintenance you had to pay for?
Tires? Brakes? frontend alignment? Windshield wipers? Power Windows?
Not many of THOSE are going to be different with an EV
When was the last time you had:
a tuneup?
spark plugs? fan belts? timing chains? Fuel Injectors?
an engine overhaul?
transmission work?
In this century, i've had ONE car (2015 Honda Fit, 42mpg) that needed transmission work.
That is THE GRAND TOTAL of 'engine work' i've had to do.
Tires? sure, brakes (once!), front end alignments sure.. But Engine (or Tranmission) work? nope!
Of course, i DO get a new car every 4 or 5 years (it worries me once it's over 190,000 miles (yes, gilbar drives; a LOT about 40k a year))
What i'm getting at is that modern engines seem pretty fool proof; unlike my 1970 Plymouth Barracuda.. That thing was a maintenance Nightmare (but fun!)
@Steven Wilson: in 2017 while on vacation in the UK, my rental car happened to be a Toyota Rav-4 hybrid which was also diesel. I was getting 55 mpg … Consequently, when I needed to get a new car the following year in I went for the USA version of the hybrid. Gasoline instead of diesel makes a big difference as I manage to get 35 mpg unless i go the interstate and drive at 70 mph which drops my mpg to about 30.
The imperial gallon is 20% larger than a US gallon, so in US terms your diesel rental was getting, without trying, a little less than 45 mpg. Still, pretty good. And 30 mpg isn't bad, either. In comparison, though, my 2007 BMW 530 gets around 33 mpg on the interstate.
Perhaps not a completely valid comparison. A RAV4 has both more internal volume, and, consequently, more drag.
@Former Twitter Aficionado: One aspect of EV that has me rooting for them is how less complicated they are compared to an ICE vehicle. A lot more critical components can go wrong and often do with ICE. A new transmission goes for over $6,000 for example.
EVs are, indeed, much less complicated than ICEs. But modern drivetrains require almost no maintenance over their useful lifetimes. Transmissions in no small part because they are thoroughly integrated with the engine, and engines because far better, well, everything.
At 145,000 miles on my aforementioned BMW — which makes notoriously maintenance intensive cars — I've replaced spark plugs, valve cover gasket, oil filter manifold profile seal, and a driveshaft center support bearing. And 20 oil changes. Can't forget them. Everything else I've done, mostly suspension & brakes, would happen to EV's too.
There's no way that I'll be spending enough on the drivetrain over its service life (~225,000 miles) to overcome the $10,000 difference in purchase price.
@MikeR: For most EV users, you are charging at home almost all the time. It is still cheaper, and way more convenient.
For those EV users who are fortunate to have garages, or dedicated off-street parking, that is.
Re: Gasoline Stations ...
The real money is made inside the store
Today, 80% of all gas stations have a convenience store on site.
The goods inside these stores — Doritos, sunglasses, lotto tickets, energy drinks — only account for ~30% of the average gas station’s revenue, yet bring in 70% of the profit.
According to a study conducted by the National Association of Convenience Stores, 44% of gas station customers go inside. And among them, 1 in 3 ends up indulging in some kind of treat.
In contrast to fuel, the goods inside these stores can reel in average profit margins of 30%+.
Some items post much higher figures ...
https://thehustle.co/the-economics-of-gas-stations/
There is a BP station near me that frequently has no cars at the pumps. And while the occasional one or two is filling up, three or four others stop near the door to buy beer, wine, cigarettes or a lousy microwaved "meal" and a soda. Across the street is a Speedway with a much larger store that is so busy not selling gasoline that it needs more parking.
Eventually gasoline will go away, replaced by Direct Current Fast Charging (DCFC -- roughly equivalent to Tesla's Superchargers) and the gasoline to EV evolution will be complete. And we'll wonder why it took so long.
I do not have a problem with EVs. Over time, technology will likely improve so that they have more efficient batteries that do not require massive mining of cobalt, lithium and other minerals. Increased use may spur cleaner energy sources such as nuclear.
I do have a serious problem with politicians jumping on the EV Virtue Wagon and mandating them. Let consumers and producers work that out.
I had the same problem with vaccine mandates, CRT mandates, etc.
MadisonMan,
The free charging was for early adapters. We have a Tesla Model S, bought eight years ago, and all charging not on site is free. But this doesn't apply to current buyers.
That said, the Tesla supercharger network really is spectacular. I listen to people complaining of EV troubles (OMG, I couldn't get across Wyoming with my Nissan Leaf!) and I think: What are you wanting the car to do? See what's possible, and work with that.
What i'm getting at is that modern engines seem pretty fool proof
Maintenance consists basically of an oil and air filter change. 5 minutes or less in the pit.
global justice, should you really even own a car
No. Individual transports, especially with disparately collected raw resources, and energy garnered from environmentally blighted Green sources, have a progressive Diversity, Inequity, Exclusion and Distancing (DIED) footprint.
So you are telling us new nuclear plants will be permitted
They need to change the weaponized fuel cycle, and focus on energy production with reduced collateral waste. A separation of defense and industry.
Chuck, trolls like you don't get to complain about personal attacks and taken seriously. I don't know whose cock you had to suck to get your comments posted here again, but expect to be treated by most of us like a pile of dog shit because that is exactly what you are.
Comment undeleted
This comment cannot be removed by the author.
Typing Talker,
You are right about the profits being made inside the convenience store rather than at the pumps. The snack food industry sees a real threat. A significant fraction of snack food purchases are impulse buys made when buying gas.
I wrote about it here:
https://www.packagingdigest.com/flexible-packaging/will-electric-vehicles-put-pouch-machines-out-business
John Henry
Blogger n.n said...
Maintenance consists basically of an oil and air filter change. 5 minutes or less in the pit.
I've found that I need to change the plugs every 150,000 miles or so as well. Damn cheap japanese and Korean crap. Why can't they make a spark plug that lasts 250,000 miles?
John Henry
A car driving kids in the winter in hilly country needs a large safety margin in terms of charge because the battery is used very much more quickly. There's no way to know how much more quickly and this makes EV car use a actual safety hazard to children under conditions which will occur every winter in northern and mountainous areas of the country.
"What are you wanting the car to do? See what's possible, and work with that."
But our "betters" aren't willing to let us do that. They're cramming these things down our throat. ICE will be banned by 2030 or whatever.
Chuck, I don't know whose cock you had to suck to get your comments posted here again, but expect to be treated by most of us like a pile of dog shit because that is exactly what you are.
Are you saying that Chuck is actually David Brock?
Blogger Yancey Ward said..."Chuck, trolls like you don't get to complain about personal attacks and taken seriously. I don't know whose cock you had to suck to get your comments posted here again, but expect to be treated by most of us like a pile of dog shit because that is exactly what you are."
I would like to associate myself with this remark.
D.D. Driver said...
"Replace the word ICE with horse and EV for automobile and you can hear how ridiculous you guys sound. Nobody wants to drive to the gas station or get oil changed or belts replaced. My problem with ICE is that is an old crappy, inconvenient technology. "
If electricity were free you'd have a valid point. But it isn't free. The supply chain to fuel your electric vehicle is filled with coal, natural gas, fuel oil. Kerosene and Uranium. The green solutions are filled with petrochemicals just to convert raw materials into usable products. Wind turbine Blades are made from plastics. They have a useful life span of about 20 years. Did you know that the oil in a wind turbine generator must be kept at a constant temperature even when not spinning? Plastics are petrochemicals. What are you going to do with all those blades? The material for your solar panels are toxic. They also use petrochemicals. Right now ICE is our most efficient use of energy per mile driven. They aren't going away any time soon.
As has been said before. To make electric vehicles useful there must be a huge change in battery technology. There is only about a ten year supply of lithium at the current rate of use. There has to be a huge change in charging technology. And finally we will need an enormous number of nuclear plants to provide the needed electricity.
Your opinion is noted, but it should be an informed one.
D.D. Driver said...
"Replace the word ICE with horse and EV for automobile and you can hear how ridiculous you guys sound. Nobody wants to drive to the gas station or get oil changed or belts replaced. My problem with ICE is that is an old crappy, inconvenient technology. "
If electricity were free you'd have a valid point. But it isn't free. The supply chain to fuel your electric vehicle is filled with coal, natural gas, fuel oil. Kerosene and Uranium. The green solutions are filled with petrochemicals just to convert raw materials into usable products. Wind turbine Blades are made from plastics. They have a useful life span of about 20 years. Did you know that the oil in a wind turbine generator must be kept at a constant temperature even when not spinning? Plastics are petrochemicals. What are you going to do with all those blades? The material for your solar panels are toxic. They also use petrochemicals. Right now ICE is our most efficient use of energy per mile driven. They aren't going away any time soon.
As has been said before. To make electric vehicles useful there must be a huge change in battery technology. There is only about a ten year supply of lithium at the current rate of use. There has to be a huge change in charging technology. And finally we will need an enormous number of nuclear plants to provide the needed electricity.
Your opinion is noted, but it should be an informed one.
Two different conversations:
- Are EV autos cool and useful? and
- Is there any validity to petro-phobia?
Leaves me in the position of loving the elegance of the engineering, but refusing to be herded by the warmie cult. Call me when the argument must only be about the engineering.
Gabriel said...
(Does a lot of math to point out the tediousness of charging an electric car)
And in a few seconds Doc dropped a banana peel and a mostly empty beer can into the Mr Fusion from 2015 that powers the DeLorean. Clearly we live in the wrong alternate reality.
"Anyway, Chuck, back to playing the man instead of the ball. Don't. If AEG got it wrong, be specific as to how. In the process, you might find some things *you* haven't taken on board."
Obviously he is not capable of thinking beyond watching MSNBC to see who has been denounced today, and working from there. If he were to start looking at issues in detail, and from both sides, dealing with the best arguments, he wouldn't be Chuck, now, would he. He'd be chuck.
@Hey Skipper "For those EV users who are fortunate to have garages, or dedicated off-street parking, that is." Good point. But that includes a lot of people. You are right that people who really don't need a different solution.
@Michelle: Thanks!
bobby said...
"Two different conversations:
- Are EV autos cool and useful? and
- Is there any validity to petro-phobia?
Leaves me in the position of loving the elegance of the engineering, but refusing to be herded by the warmie cult. Call me when the argument must only be about the engineering."
I like fast cars.
I wrote this a week or so ago...
"Even If Electricity Were Free, It Would Still Not Pay To Buy An Electric Car
The least expensive Tesla, the Model 3 costs about $10,000 more than a Toyota, Corolla.
Even if electricity was free, how long would it take to break-even?
Let's say gasoline is $3.33/gallon. $10k will buy you 3,000 gallons. At 30 miles per gallon, this is 90,000 miles. Okay, so it's possible and this doesn't take into account the lost income from waiting 9-10 years to get your $10k back.
But electricity isn't free...
Our latest bill, (I ignored all the prices, calculations, delivery surcharges and so forth, I just looked at the KWH and the total cost.) reflects a cost of 43 Cents/KWH. Using Tesla's claims about the storage capacity of their batteries and the range of the Model 3, we get 4 miles/KWH, so 12 Cents/mile.
If gasoline costs $3.33, a 28 MPG car will cost 12 Cents/mile.
You will never break even!
You will spend $10k, for less range, fewer and slower re-fueling and the same operating cost as a conventional car.
If you live someplace with cheap electricity, remember--even it it was free, you're still driving 90,000 miles before you break-even."
EVs are far far more expensive to own that just 'charging'. Far more.
We would be more wise to spend the money on making petroleum based vehicles more efficient and less polluting.
Our infrastructure just cannot take 1,000,000 electric cars charging all at once AND supporting everything else. You will have blackouts if you try that stuff! Lots of them!
John Henry,
There was a time when gasoline stations made money on car maintenance (oil changes etc), car repair and tire sales as well as the odd bag of chips and coke from a vending machine. That transitioned to what we have today.
The only constant is change.
Remember that thing that happened with Chuck and the pie? Good times!
I was chatting with another guy in our office gym a while back. He had an electric vehicle and could charge for free in the company provided charging stations in our parking lot.
Naturally, I got to thinking: What if I purchased an electric car, fully charged it at work (only 15 miles away) and then ran my house off of the car battery at night? That might make sense, for me. Work would be getting sucked dry by the exchange.
https://twitter.com/jasonfenske13/status/1618690868923490304
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा