The EV Naysayers

[mkhuffman]

LOL, the gas price is only a relative. As well as standard of living. You think it is unacceptable because it used to be $1.5/gallon not long ago. Americans are privileged. Many Asian and European countries have way worse gas price than US with less income. And they are still living. You just have to adapt and drive less with more efficient cars. Maybe do more public transportations.

Of course you could stick the head in the sand. Keep driving 15 mpg big V8 SUVs and Pickups because gas is cheap. You can afford it. Will the poor driving Prius get impacted? Of course. But everyone has to make sacrifices in order to shift the market towards a more sustainable future. I do not believe change will come naturally and instantly. That is why EV credits are necessary to help people shift away from ICE. A straight up ban on ICE will just bring too much turmoil. Gradually increasing gas price to push down the demand of inefficient ICE is making more sense to me.

If you only care about your bill, then sure you would not agree. You probably want to invade some middle east countries for cheaper gas.

The bottom line: you don't care how government policies impact the poor because you are not poor. You can afford to pay more for gas, and you don't care that other people can't. If they cannot afford to drive a car, force them to use public transportation. Right?

Public transportation sucks. If we have a choice, we prefer to drive. I see the buses in my town - almost every bus I see has one or two people riding in it. Many times the bus is totally empty, going for bus stop to bus stop. What a waste of money. Those two people in that bus can't afford a car, and everyone else who can, drives. Because that is what we prefer to do. Unless the government forces us to do something else.

I can afford to pay more for gas, so it isn't about me. It is about our economy and the policies the government forces on us to control our behavior. And, by the way, cheaper oil means cheaper everything. Literally. If you drive up the cost of oil, you drive up the cost of everything, including public transportation. But who cares if the poor can't even afford the bus fare, right? Inflation impacts everyone but it impacts the poor the most.

I don't want to invade the Middle East to get oil. I want to expand drilling in the US and Canada. We have more than enough oil in North America to be oil independent. In the recent past, the US has exported more oil than we imported, so it can be done. It should be done.

Sponsored

 

[mkhuffman]

I'm not actually taking a position here, just stating that the Genie is already out of the bottle. Governments mandate stuff all the time. Some mandates over the years I have agreed with - bans on smoking in public for example (I'm not a smoker) - while others I think have been stupid, like banning incandescent bulbs.

We are generally free to do most things in society, but when something we do is deemed to be detrimental to others (like smoking in public), Government sometimes steps in.

The Genie is out of the bottle, so it is OK for the government to mandate anything they want, regardless of the impact to individual freedom? Past mistakes mean future mistakes are OK? I disagree with that logic. Totally.

 

[Space_Pony]

I've noticed that it seems that most of the conversations about EV charging leave out a major factor for any fiscally responsible person, the price of DCFC charging. It seems that some think that as long as the chargers are there, the price is no object and that people will pay whatever the price is set at. I saw an EV charging station set at .64/kwh. That price makes an ICEV more economical. The government is helping to put these DCFC chargers out there. Are they going to help keep the prices affordable for people already having a hard time making ends meet?

 

[ctenidae]

The Genie is out of the bottle, so it is OK for the government to mandate anything they want, regardless of the impact to individual freedom? Past mistakes mean future mistakes are OK? I disagree with that logic. Totally.

Past mistakes don't justify future ones, for sure (they should inform them, though...)

I disagree with the obverse of your comment on government mandates vs individual freedoms. At some point "individual freedoms" must give way to the general good. Government, as the representative of the People, has the explicit duty to look out for the People overall (life liberty, pursuit of happiness, of the people, for the people, by the people, and all that jazz). Not individual persons. California put a deadline on ICE cars, and that government has been re-elected by the will of the people. Some people object to the ban, but society has told them that they are wrong. Does one person who still wants to drive a gas car because he doesn't want to be "told what to do" have the right to cause cancer and kill polar bears in the name of individual freedoms? Society tends to say "No, he does not."

"Individual freedoms" is, in my opinion, one of the weakest of all possible arguments in favor of anything. Individual freedoms have a limit, right about where they impact other people, and if a big enough group of people object to something and someone keeps doing it anyway then they're no longer being free, they're just being wrong. Otherwise we have no social contract and we can all just do whatever the heck we want whenever and however we want.

We can disagree about how effectively the government reflects the will of the people, we can disagree about what's best for the people overall. That's what elections are for.

 

[ctenidae]

I've noticed that it seems that most of the conversations about EV charging leave out a major factor for any fiscally responsible person, the price of DCFC charging. It seems that some think that as long as the chargers are there, the price is no object and that people will pay whatever the price is set at. I saw an EV charging station set at .64/kwh. That price makes an ICEV more economical. The government is helping to put these DCFC chargers out there. Are they going to help keep the prices affordable for people already having a hard time making ends meet?

I'm not sure government subsidies of electrons for poor people is a great plan. If you buy an EV, and have to only DCFC, and you go to a 64 cent station all the time, I would argue that you are not a fiscally responsible person to begin with and buying an EV was a stupid move. Government's never been very good at protecting people from their own personal stupidity.

Note, I rely on Carlo Cipolla's definition of Stupidity, namely doing something that harms yourself and provides no benefit to others.

 

[MellowJohnny]

The Genie is out of the bottle, so it is OK for the government to mandate anything they want, regardless of the impact to individual freedom? Past mistakes mean future mistakes are OK? I disagree with that logic. Totally.

The precedent for similar constraints on choice has already been set. It's not logic, it's the reality of a federal democratic republic.

Our system of Government (both in Canada and the US) is essentially a four year dictatorship - the party in power does effectively have the right to mandate whatever they see fit. So to answer your question, yes they do, unless the freedom being removed is protected by the US Constitution or in my case The Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Whether you deem decisions made by Government to be OK or not largely depends on which side of the argument you are on. Owning an ICE is not protected in the US Constitution, therefore removing this "freedom" is fair game. Some are OK with this decision, some are not.

So yeah, we give the Government a lot of leeway. Sometimes you agree with their choices, sometimes you don't. The beauty is if you don't like the decisions being made by the current administration there is an opportunity this year to voice your opinion at the polling booth.

If it turns out the majority of the US voters don't agree, the new Administration can undo the 2035 mandate.

 

[Space_Pony]

I'm not sure government subsidies of electrons for poor people is a great plan. If you buy an EV, and have to only DCFC, and you go to a 64 cent station all the time, I would argue that you are not a fiscally responsible person to begin with and buying an EV was a stupid move. Government's never been very good at protecting people from their own personal stupidity.

Note, I rely on Carlo Cipolla's definition of Stupidity, namely doing something that harms yourself and provides no benefit to others.

I agree that it is not wise to subsidize these EV's and installation of chargers(incentivizing the purchase of an EV) and then disregarding the price of DCFC charging. Too many people that are not responsible, think they should buy an EV without doing their homework when they see these tax credits.
Hey they can just buy electricity on their credit card that is already maxed out.

 

[Mach1E]

I don't disagree, and I think you bring up a point that Government should be making right now: let's agree this is, to borrow a management term, a stretch goal.

Be honest with the public. We might not make it - in fact I don't think we will. But I think we will get pretty close, and we will get much further ahead by putting a stake in the ground and striving to achieve it. The alternative is we throw up our hands, say "this is hard", point to all the excuse we have floating around, and get nowhere.

I also think the other thing missing is the idea that we need exceptions - we banned pesticides for residential use in the province of Ontario at least 10 years ago. But there are exceptions - golf courses can still use them as the ban would have put undue burden on them. Same here. Not everyone can do it without placing undue burden on them. I'm sure we could come up with logical exceptions.

So I think there is some PR that could be done here to ease the blowback and explain the plan a bit better. People don't like being told what to do, but if you explain why and address people's concerns and fears, people get on board.

North Americans have accomplished at lot of things that were "hard" and may have seemed impossible at the time, but we got the job done because we didn't give up trying.

Stretch goal would be fine.

Legal mandates don’t work that way unfortunately.

Other than move out of California, not sure what people are gonna do when they can’t buy the vehicle they need/want and register it in the state in 2031.

I also think it’s the wrong target.

Literally nothing wrong with continuing the CAFE restrictions which would allow for PHEVs as well as focus on more efficient hybrids and ICEs as necessary.

The goal should be making everything better for the environment, not abandoning (hypocritically) gas engines.

Why hypocritical? Because we still use so much oil in the manufacturing.

It’s like refusing to eat meat but wearing leather shoes.

 

[mkhuffman]

Our system of Government (both in Canada and the US) is essentially a four year dictatorship - the party in power does effectively have the right to mandate whatever they see fit. So to answer your question, yes they do, unless the freedom being removed is protected by the US Constitution or in my case The Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The US Federal Government is definitely not a four-year dictatorship, and the party in power does NOT have the right to mandate whatever they see fit. The US Constitution is a negative rights constitution because it restricts what the government is allowed to do.

Anything not specified in Constitution is left to the states and the individual. I am not familiar with Canada's legal framework, but it isn't the same as that. So maybe in Canada the national government is a four-year dictatorship, but not here.

California is not restricted in power like the US Federal Government is, so they can ban ICEVs and not violate their laws (assuming they change them to allow that) and operate like a dictatorship similar to the Canadian government. But the US Constitution does not include the power to ban ICEVs, so if they take that action, it would be illegal.

 

[MellowJohnny]

The US Federal Government is definitely not a four-year dictatorship, and the party in power does NOT have the right to mandate whatever they see fit. The US Constitution is a negative rights constitution because it restricts what the government is allowed to do.

Anything not specified in Constitution is left to the states and the individual. I am not familiar with Canada's legal framework, but it isn't the same as that. So maybe in Canada the national government is a four-year dictatorship, but not here.

California is not restricted in power like the US Federal Government is, so they can ban ICEVs and not violate their laws (assuming they change them to allow that) and operate like a dictatorship similar to the Canadian government. But the US Constitution does not include the power to ban ICEVs, so if they take that action, it would be illegal.

Mike, I was being facetious....

 

[mkhuffman]

Mike, I was being facetious....

That's good. It is hard to tell with text...

 

[kennethjk]

I love my Mustang Mach E and don’t regret one bit switching to an EV. That said, I actively discourage most of my friends from even THINKING about EVs. Most of my friends are intelligent, well-educated, and technologically savvy. They’re also “human beings”. For example, one married couple I know, I could picture their marriage coming to a violent, bloody end the first time they’d have to charge a car on a road trip. The wife has little patience for some things and would go ballistic at the first non-functional, or full charger they encountered. Another friend is the type who wouldn’t bother to investigate and learn about the technology (I have to remind him to upgrade iOS on his phone ?). And I can’t imagine any of my friends taking time to understand, or deal with the 12V battery and system.

To me the biggest issue in potential adoption of EVs is the little issues such as the 12v battery and that’s big. Until the EV industry learns how to make a car that doesn’t brick or have electrical glitches as much as they do, there will be problems. Think new Blazer.

read any EV car forum, there are tons of examples of problems that the general public will go crazy dealing with And that’s not including DCFC.

many of the people I know have their own homes and maybe take 1 long trip a year so an EV would absolutely fit their lifestyle. The but is, they are nervous about the charging and stories of cars not starting, car play not working or having their 12v batteries drain or die. They just don’t want the hassle. Don’t blame them on that front.

for those that live in condos, townhomes and apartments you have a whole lot of charging issues and most likely have to depend on DcFC. If I was working, that would be a deal breaker, at least in todays environment.

just a quick note. My trips from Boca to Tampa used to have issues charging, I now see a Pilot station in Bartow has their DCFC up and running , fantastic news. There is a lot of positive news coming on the charging front.

me personally, I would never buy another ICE vehicle and my wife would never be without one.

Another quick note- one friend of mine has a Tesla and he loves it. Has no idea about battery loss in winter, when I asked him if he had sirius radio, he had no idea. This is after 6 years of ownership. His wife won’t let him take the car on any long road trips. He just wanted an EV to help the environment. He drives maybe 5k miles a year and has only DCFC’d maybe 4 times.

 

[nvabill]

What, only 14 pages and nobody posting on this thread for a week, imagine that! ?

 

[Deleted member 19354]

^^^ Yes, this is correct.

California passed a regulation that by 2035 all new vehicle sales will be EV.

That's not only harsh, but unrealistic - many people will revolt when told they have to drive an EV.

Can't see everyone driving an EV when we don't even have state + federal paid chargers yet.

10 year to go and very pathetic for a state that has the highest EV adoption rate (20-25%).

Yesterday, had a difficult time finding a DCFC in the South Bay (So Calif) - went to 2 EVGo and 2 EA - all were 50% operational with long lines. The local mall had 16 EV chargers (all 7kW) which was useless.

Ended up 45 minutes later going to an ARCO gas station that had 2 100kW chargers that actually worked and no line.

Just glad I was not in a hurry...

I’ve used the Arco chargers here in Everett Washington. Almost a hidden gem. Never had issues being “off line” never had to wait for a charger

 

[Space_Pony]

LOL, the gas price is only a relative. As well as standard of living. You think it is unacceptable because it used to be $1.5/gallon not long ago. Americans are privileged. Many Asian and European countries have way worse gas price than US with less income. And they are still living. You just have to adapt and drive less with more efficient cars. Maybe do more public transportations.

Of course you could stick the head in the sand. Keep driving 15 mpg big V8 SUVs and Pickups because gas is cheap. You can afford it. Will the poor driving Prius get impacted? Of course. But everyone has to make sacrifices in order to shift the market towards a more sustainable future. I do not believe change will come naturally and instantly. That is why EV credits are necessary to help people shift away from ICE. A straight up ban on ICE will just bring too much turmoil. Gradually increasing gas price to push down the demand of inefficient ICE is making more sense to me.

If you only care about your bill, then sure you would not agree. You probably want to invade some middle east countries for cheaper gas.

That sounds like a well written post from somebody that is out of touch with the lower paid working class people, who are struggling with making ends meet thanks to a dollar that is worth half of what it was 5 years ago. Many people around here need to drive 30 miles to work and they will drive whatever is most financially viable. That doesn't include EVs currently. There is no public transportation. It makes more sense to continue with diverse energy sources since the electric infrastructure can't handle everybody driving an EV anyway.

Sponsored