We bought our first EV in August and have talked it up so much that my brother and his wife are renting one when they come to visit over Christmas. We just had the level 2 charger installed at our house (the house had solar panels when we bought it, just out of luck, not something we were specifically shopping for). I drive my husband to the ferry for his commute in my EV, then charge it with solar power. We have become Woke Californians and could not be happier about it. (Our other car is a 20-year-old Subaru that my husband uses for mountain biking on the weekends. That car is essentially his first child. But we also believe that it's silly to get rid of a perfectly goodly-working car to buy something new; we will keep this Subaru until it is completely undriveable.) My husband also has a 1980-something LandCruiser that he and a cousin are scheming to update with a new electric engine. This cousin has already dropped an Audi electric engine into a classic VW Beetle and it's kind of amazing.
We also live in a walkable area, so not every errand has to be done in a car and our kid walks to school, and we know we are privileged to be able to take that into consideration when we were house shopping. But it shouldn't be a privilege. Anyone who wants this should be able to have it.
Government should offer incentives to encourage businesses who can, let people work from home. That would also free up real estate to be turned into affordable housing. Also- Incentives for 1 car households.
Having used a KOA EV-6 over the holiday - they don’t make much sense for the average driver. Congestion at charging stations as well as the time it takes to charge makes them unreliable for people using their cars for more than errands around their homes. Also, we are still using (mainly) oil generated power for them.
EVs are going to cause a huge amount of waste (in building batteries and charging stations) before everyone switches to hydrogen fuel cells (or some other tech that we don’t know about). It is a no brainer- gas stations could retro fit already existing tanks into liquid hydrogen tanks. Not sure why the government isn’t backing hydrogen tech. Other countries are already leaps and bounds ahead of the US using buses that are hydrogen as well as automobiles.
Unfortunately having Musk seated as Trumps left hand man guarantees taxpayers will be subsidizing EV tech for the foreseeable future.
Making cars - of any sort - takes energy AND raw materials. Those materials are finite. So whilst we can do something about emissions and the climate - which we absolutely have to do. What happens when we run out of the natural resources that are needed to make - not just cars - but anything? e.g.: solar panels or wind farms.
Plastic comes from oil - which is definitely a finite resource. Lithium - for batteries - is a finite resource. Yeah, it's pretty obvious that - as we are sitting on a piece of rock in space - there's only so much "stuff" on that rock.
I think the question isn't "if" we will run out, but how we deal with it. We can just keep consuming finite resources at an ever increasing rate - and fall off a cliff. Or we can start to reorganise the way we live - right now - to facilitate a softer landing.
First on my list would be work from home, (or local "hubs"), if at all possible. And what should we do with all those empty office blocks? Well there are plenty of homeless who would be more than happy if they were repurposed to provide a roof over their heads.
Maybe we can save ourselves from a climate disaster - and maybe not! What we can't do is magically conjure up finite natural resources when they run out. And that's the real problem.
About the "Cash for Clunkers" program... I am old enough to remember when Obama passed a similar program in 2009. Car salesmen were outraged because yes, they were selling new (or new-ish) cars at a time when nobody could really afford to buy anything, but by participating in the program 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘧𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘥𝘥𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮!
Out of all the "temporarily embarrassed millionaires" in this country, car salesmen rank as some of the worst.
"The good thing is that nobody who’s serious about climate action is arguing for a one-to-one replacement of every ICE vehicle with an EV. They may argue a lot about what the right policy mix should be, but there’s broad agreement that along with making cars cleaner, we need to move toward fewer cars whenever possible, which has to include zoning, transit systems, and urban design that makes not having a car not just tolerable, but preferable for most people."
One of the problems with "getting rid of cars" is the geographical and population makeup of the US - specifically and especially the rural areas. You can't even walk to the grocery store from most parts of my 45k people town. Biking is a possibility. Public transit exists, but not at the funding levels near necessary to replace cars, and BRT has had limited success where extensively tried. We have commuter light rail in several of the major population centers where I live, but it's not enough yet.
And I don't live in middle america or even the extremely rural PacNW where you have 3 neighbors per square mile or whatever.
Can we do more? Certainly. Can we get rid of cars? Not likely any time soon. Not in this country. We're too spread out.
The point: there is the argument about "shifting the emissions to the power plant." Yes, that's what happens. And that's a good thing, for several reasons.
One, it's easier to ensure clean emissions at the utility level than managing emissions for 150 million mobile pollution generators.
Two, those mobile pollution generators require a toxic fuel. It's actually pretty amazing how few gasoline spills occur in urban areas, but still, reducing that number to zero makes sense.
Three, modern highways tend to be routed in urban areas through neighborhoods. And you all know what kind of neighborhoods That Fuck Robert Moses chose to run them through. Imagine all of the pollution in those neighborhoods. Now replace ICE cars with EVs and that pollution goes away. (There is the problem of the utilities being built in/near those neighborhoods, which we can't ignore.) Even suburban and rural areas will benefit from the lower emissions.
The question: it's been the case for a while that cars easily last for fifteen years. What's the point of leasing? I mean, my car is nearly 20 years old, and I've rather enjoyed not having car payments for 17 of those years. And since it's a Honda, the cost of maintenance and repair has been reasonably low.
All excellent points! As for leasing, I got at that in my first piece on getting the car: 1) EV technology is improving so quickly that there's a good chance that in three years, the tech will be even farther along; 2) There's a different tax credit to leasing companies than to individuals, meaning you can get the full $7500 tax savings even on models excluded by the consumer-only credit, and 3) It was a terrific deal, with a no money down option, and I wandered into the dealership at the right time.
Edit: Oh yeah, and 4) I wanted to get an EV with the credit before Trump tries to kill it off. He certainly doesn't have any idea that the lease "loophole" exists, but the creeps that will actually enact any changes will.
Great points. The efficiency of power plants, especially methane ("natural gas") plants is much higher than a vehicle engine, which wastes about 70% of its fuel. So even if every grid in the US was generating electricity using fossil fuels, EVs would be the more efficient and less polluting choice nearly everywhere. And that's obviously not the case, because of distributed and grid-scale solar and wind.
I have a Kia Niro plug-in hybrid - fortunately, there are coffee shops near the free recharge stations. I am trying to drive normally and not freak out when I start using gas. I bought a P-HEV b/c I thought I would be buying a house but I ended up in an apartment and there is no way to run power down to the garage, sigh.
Whomever coined “greenhouse” gases as such, was really unwise. You hear “greenhouse” gases and think “plants and jungles.” You hear “toxicmurderheat” gases and you do a double-take and pay attention.
That's twice horrible: First the anti-Semitic nature of burning these people, and secondly your implication that a people wanting to be free is antisemitism.
I'm waiting for industry to offer a plug in dirigible
We bought our first EV in August and have talked it up so much that my brother and his wife are renting one when they come to visit over Christmas. We just had the level 2 charger installed at our house (the house had solar panels when we bought it, just out of luck, not something we were specifically shopping for). I drive my husband to the ferry for his commute in my EV, then charge it with solar power. We have become Woke Californians and could not be happier about it. (Our other car is a 20-year-old Subaru that my husband uses for mountain biking on the weekends. That car is essentially his first child. But we also believe that it's silly to get rid of a perfectly goodly-working car to buy something new; we will keep this Subaru until it is completely undriveable.) My husband also has a 1980-something LandCruiser that he and a cousin are scheming to update with a new electric engine. This cousin has already dropped an Audi electric engine into a classic VW Beetle and it's kind of amazing.
We also live in a walkable area, so not every errand has to be done in a car and our kid walks to school, and we know we are privileged to be able to take that into consideration when we were house shopping. But it shouldn't be a privilege. Anyone who wants this should be able to have it.
That reminds me that I need to start up th F-150. I haven't driven it in months.
Government should offer incentives to encourage businesses who can, let people work from home. That would also free up real estate to be turned into affordable housing. Also- Incentives for 1 car households.
Having used a KOA EV-6 over the holiday - they don’t make much sense for the average driver. Congestion at charging stations as well as the time it takes to charge makes them unreliable for people using their cars for more than errands around their homes. Also, we are still using (mainly) oil generated power for them.
EVs are going to cause a huge amount of waste (in building batteries and charging stations) before everyone switches to hydrogen fuel cells (or some other tech that we don’t know about). It is a no brainer- gas stations could retro fit already existing tanks into liquid hydrogen tanks. Not sure why the government isn’t backing hydrogen tech. Other countries are already leaps and bounds ahead of the US using buses that are hydrogen as well as automobiles.
Unfortunately having Musk seated as Trumps left hand man guarantees taxpayers will be subsidizing EV tech for the foreseeable future.
Making cars - of any sort - takes energy AND raw materials. Those materials are finite. So whilst we can do something about emissions and the climate - which we absolutely have to do. What happens when we run out of the natural resources that are needed to make - not just cars - but anything? e.g.: solar panels or wind farms.
Plastic comes from oil - which is definitely a finite resource. Lithium - for batteries - is a finite resource. Yeah, it's pretty obvious that - as we are sitting on a piece of rock in space - there's only so much "stuff" on that rock.
I think the question isn't "if" we will run out, but how we deal with it. We can just keep consuming finite resources at an ever increasing rate - and fall off a cliff. Or we can start to reorganise the way we live - right now - to facilitate a softer landing.
First on my list would be work from home, (or local "hubs"), if at all possible. And what should we do with all those empty office blocks? Well there are plenty of homeless who would be more than happy if they were repurposed to provide a roof over their heads.
Maybe we can save ourselves from a climate disaster - and maybe not! What we can't do is magically conjure up finite natural resources when they run out. And that's the real problem.
simply insufferable
<robert palmer gif>
About the "Cash for Clunkers" program... I am old enough to remember when Obama passed a similar program in 2009. Car salesmen were outraged because yes, they were selling new (or new-ish) cars at a time when nobody could really afford to buy anything, but by participating in the program 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘧𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘥𝘥𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮!
Out of all the "temporarily embarrassed millionaires" in this country, car salesmen rank as some of the worst.
"The good thing is that nobody who’s serious about climate action is arguing for a one-to-one replacement of every ICE vehicle with an EV. They may argue a lot about what the right policy mix should be, but there’s broad agreement that along with making cars cleaner, we need to move toward fewer cars whenever possible, which has to include zoning, transit systems, and urban design that makes not having a car not just tolerable, but preferable for most people."
Yaaaaaaay!
One of the problems with "getting rid of cars" is the geographical and population makeup of the US - specifically and especially the rural areas. You can't even walk to the grocery store from most parts of my 45k people town. Biking is a possibility. Public transit exists, but not at the funding levels near necessary to replace cars, and BRT has had limited success where extensively tried. We have commuter light rail in several of the major population centers where I live, but it's not enough yet.
And I don't live in middle america or even the extremely rural PacNW where you have 3 neighbors per square mile or whatever.
Can we do more? Certainly. Can we get rid of cars? Not likely any time soon. Not in this country. We're too spread out.
Just my gloomsaying $0.02
I would love to get an EV.
My old ass Suburu is actually paid for. And a new car payment/rent isn't in the budget.
A point, and a question.
The point: there is the argument about "shifting the emissions to the power plant." Yes, that's what happens. And that's a good thing, for several reasons.
One, it's easier to ensure clean emissions at the utility level than managing emissions for 150 million mobile pollution generators.
Two, those mobile pollution generators require a toxic fuel. It's actually pretty amazing how few gasoline spills occur in urban areas, but still, reducing that number to zero makes sense.
Three, modern highways tend to be routed in urban areas through neighborhoods. And you all know what kind of neighborhoods That Fuck Robert Moses chose to run them through. Imagine all of the pollution in those neighborhoods. Now replace ICE cars with EVs and that pollution goes away. (There is the problem of the utilities being built in/near those neighborhoods, which we can't ignore.) Even suburban and rural areas will benefit from the lower emissions.
The question: it's been the case for a while that cars easily last for fifteen years. What's the point of leasing? I mean, my car is nearly 20 years old, and I've rather enjoyed not having car payments for 17 of those years. And since it's a Honda, the cost of maintenance and repair has been reasonably low.
All excellent points! As for leasing, I got at that in my first piece on getting the car: 1) EV technology is improving so quickly that there's a good chance that in three years, the tech will be even farther along; 2) There's a different tax credit to leasing companies than to individuals, meaning you can get the full $7500 tax savings even on models excluded by the consumer-only credit, and 3) It was a terrific deal, with a no money down option, and I wandered into the dealership at the right time.
Edit: Oh yeah, and 4) I wanted to get an EV with the credit before Trump tries to kill it off. He certainly doesn't have any idea that the lease "loophole" exists, but the creeps that will actually enact any changes will.
Great points. The efficiency of power plants, especially methane ("natural gas") plants is much higher than a vehicle engine, which wastes about 70% of its fuel. So even if every grid in the US was generating electricity using fossil fuels, EVs would be the more efficient and less polluting choice nearly everywhere. And that's obviously not the case, because of distributed and grid-scale solar and wind.
I have a Kia Niro plug-in hybrid - fortunately, there are coffee shops near the free recharge stations. I am trying to drive normally and not freak out when I start using gas. I bought a P-HEV b/c I thought I would be buying a house but I ended up in an apartment and there is no way to run power down to the garage, sigh.
Whomever coined “greenhouse” gases as such, was really unwise. You hear “greenhouse” gases and think “plants and jungles.” You hear “toxicmurderheat” gases and you do a double-take and pay attention.
I'm totally calling them toxicmurderheat gasses now.
Or maybe "hothouse gases."
We can haz transit?
The most sustainable car is no car
Ta, Dok. Please, please let us know how Doktor Zapp handles winter.
My sibling maintains that America is too big to invest in high-speed rail, a sentiment I find absolutely bewildering.
I feel like America is "investing" in high-speed rail, and by "investing" I mean throwing money into a pit in the name of high-speed rail.
Are we? I was unaware of any effort in that department.
California's working on it. One huge problem is right of way. Property is crazy expensive near the proposed terminals.
A synagogue in Australia was set alight with congregants inside. Two suffered serious burns.
Surely this will free Palestine.
That's twice horrible: First the anti-Semitic nature of burning these people, and secondly your implication that a people wanting to be free is antisemitism.
My implication is that murdering Jews will never lead to the establishment of a Palestinian state.
You're implying, intentionally or accidentally, that everyone who wants to free Palestine would burn synagogues.
I. Just. Can't.