8
2

Not So Fast on Electric Cars - WSJ


 invite response                
2022 Dec 26, 9:49am   52,613 views  779 comments

by RWSGFY   ➕follow (4)   💰tip   ignore  

Not So Fast on Electric Cars - WSJ

Allysia FinleyDec. 25, 2022 6:20 pm ET

Toyota’s CEO delivers a timely warning, and many states echo it.

Toyota CEO Akio Toyoda recently caused the climate lobby to blow a fuse by speaking a truth about battery electric vehicles that his fellow auto executives dare not. “Just like the fully autonomous cars that we were all supposed to be driving by now,” Mr. Toyoda said in Thailand, “I think BEVs are just going to take longer to become mainstream than the media would like us to believe.” He added that a “silent majority” in the auto industry share his view, “but they think it’s the trend, so they can’t speak out loudly.”
The Biden administration seems to believe that millions of Americans will rush out to buy electric vehicles if only the government throws enough subsidies at them. Last year’s infrastructure bill included $7.5 billion in grants for states to expand their charging networks. But it’s a problem when even the states are warning the administration that electric vehicles aren’t ready to go mainstream.

Maine notes in a plan submitted to the Federal Highway Administration this summer that “cold temperatures will remain a top challenge” for adoption, since “cold weather reduces EV range and increases charging times.” When temperatures drop to 5 degrees Fahrenheit, the cars achieve only 54% of their quoted range. A vehicle that’s supposed to be able to go 250 miles between charges will make it only 135 miles on average. At 32 degrees—a typical winter day in much of the country—a Tesla Model 3 that in ideal conditions can go 282 miles between charges will make it only 173 miles.
Imagine if the 100 million Americans who took to the road over the holidays were driving electric cars. How many would have been stranded as temperatures plunged? There wouldn’t be enough tow trucks—or emergency medics—for people freezing in their cars.
The Transportation Department is requiring states to build charging stations every 50 miles along interstate highways and within a mile of off-ramps to reduce the likelihood of these scenarios. But most state electrical grids aren’t built to handle this many charging stations and will thus require expensive upgrades. Illinois, for one, warns of “challenges related to sufficient electric grid capacity, particularly in rural areas of the state.”

Charging stations in rural areas with little traffic are also unlikely to be profitable and could become “stranded assets,” as many states warn. Wyoming says out-of-state traffic from non-Tesla electric vehicles would have to increase 100-fold to cover charger costs under the administration’s rules. Tesla has already scoped out premier charging locations for its proprietary network. Good luck to competitors.

New Mexico warns that “poor station maintenance can lead to stations being perpetually broken and unusable, particularly in rural or hard to access locations. If an EV charging station is built in an area without electrical capacity and infrastructure to support its use, it will be unusable until the appropriate upgrades are installed.”

Read More Life Science

• Where Was Biden’s SEC Sheriff on Sam Bankman-Fried? December 18, 2022
• Western Scientists Cheered On China’s Covid Repression December 11, 2022
• Hardly Anyone Is Buying Biden’s Bivalent Boosters December 4, 2022
Arizona says “private businesses may build and operate a station if a grant pays for the first five years of operations and maintenance” but might abandon the project if it later proves unprofitable. Many other states echo this concern, noting that federal funds could result in stranded assets.

The administration aims to build 500,000 stations, but states will likely have to spend their own money to keep them running. Like other federal inducements, these grants may entice states to assume what could become huge financial liabilities.

Federal funds also come with many rules, including “buy America” procurement requirements, which demand that chargers consist of mostly U.S.-made components. New Jersey says these could “delay implementation by several years” since only a few manufacturers can currently meet them. New York also says it will be challenging to comply with the web of federal rules, including the National Environmental Policy Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, and a 1960 federal law that bars charging stations in rest areas.

Oh, and labor rules. The administration requires that electrical workers who install and maintain the stations be certified by the union-backed Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Training Program. New Mexico says much of the state lacks contractors that meet this mandate, which will reduce competition and increase costs.

Technical problems abound too. Virginia says fast-charging hardware “has a short track record” and is “prone to malfunctions.” Equipment “previously installed privately in Virginia has had a high failure rate shown in user comments and reports on social media,” and “even compatibility with credit card readers has been unexpectedly complicated.”

A study this spring led by University of California researchers found that more than a quarter of public direct-current fast-charging stations in the San Francisco Bay Area were unusable. Drivers will be playing roulette every time they head to a station. If all this weren’t disconcerting enough, Arizona warns cyber vulnerabilities could compromise customer financial transactions, charging infrastructure, electric vehicles and the grid.

Politicians and auto makers racing to eliminate the internal-combustion engine are bound to crash into technological, logistic and financial realities, as Mr. Toyoda warned. The casualties will be taxpayers, but the administration doesn’t seem to care.


https://archive.vn/pcjK3

« First        Comments 772 - 779 of 779        Search these comments

772   Ceffer   2024 Aug 15, 7:58pm  

I'm not so sure. You have to realize they give us what they want and slander what they don't want, including nuclear power. It's standard operating procedure for technology that can replace the Rockefeller/Globalist paradigms for the plans they make for energy fails.

However, I will look into it and see if a deep dive reveals anything, but nothing I have read indicates that it is either that expensive or that compromising. Santa Cruz of all places has a hydrogen vehicle filling station. Also, as economies of scale take place and distribution channels improve, stuff gets cheaper.

Gasoline is a carrier of energy, too, as is uranium and lithium batteries, and they also have associated costs, so I don't really get the 'carrier of energy' angle.

Trying to scope the perspective of "The New Atlantis" is not clear to me either.

"The journal's name is taken from Francis Bacon's utopian novella New Atlantis, which the journal's editors describe as a "fable of a society living with the benefits and challenges of advanced science and technology".[4] An editorial in the inaugural issue states that the aim of the journal is "to help us avoid the extremes of euphoria and despair that new technologies too often arouse; and to help us judge when mobilizing our technological prowess is sensible or necessary, and when the preservation of things that count requires limiting the kinds of technological power that would lessen, cheapen, or ultimately destroy us."

That's quite an editorial position, and not one that seems promising. Helping us to avoid what, exactly? Why do I need help avoiding? Sounds like biased fact checking by another name.
773   WookieMan   2024 Aug 15, 8:29pm  

socal2 says

It was after his family vacation last month to the Olympic National Park (8+ hour drive from Boise)

How many stops? I can drive to Duluth, MN from where I live ~7 hours without stopping. Leave by 5am and I'm up there for lunch. 100% cannot do that in an EV. I'm talking a V8 full sized SUV. That's for sure 2 charging stops. If you can find them in that part of Wisconsin. 5 people and luggage for a week. No EV can do that.

You guys live on an island West of the Rockies. It's not reality in most of the country.
774   FortwayeAsFuckJoeBiden   2024 Aug 15, 9:27pm  

my neighbor got cybertruck. it has nice tech. all wheels turn, self driving (although not trusting it), wicked fast. we took it to Utah with trailer, it used about 70% charge before we got to charge station. cost of driving it is about half or less of gas when charging at stations. it has its positives. i personally like ford lightning more, but it’s way too expensive.

don’t know
how long battery will last, thats big unknown. i know laptop batteries go out after several years and don’t hold any charge. hopefully cars are better.

cautious me says hybrids are best bang for the buck these days.
775   socal2   2024 Aug 16, 10:15am  

FortwayeAsFuckJoeBiden says

how long battery will last, thats big unknown. i know laptop batteries go out after several years and don’t hold any charge. hopefully cars are better.


Tesla provides an 8 year or 100,000 mile warranty on batteries. They have the best and most sophisticated thermal system keeping the batteries healthy unlike the crap Nissan Leafs.

One of my clients has an 11 year old Model S with 180,000 miles and his battery has only had about 10% degradation.
776   socal2   2024 Aug 16, 10:32am  

WookieMan says

How many stops? I can drive to Duluth, MN from where I live ~7 hours without stopping. Leave by 5am and I'm up there for lunch.


Most human beings couldn't or wouldn't want to do that level of driving without stopping.

That level of driving would require about 2 stops for 15 minutes to charge with a Tesla. So it would add at least 30 minutes to your drive.

A Tesla would get you to Duluth by 1:00PM and you will be much more rested and relaxed using Autopilot.
777   WookieMan   2024 Aug 16, 1:51pm  

socal2 says


WookieMan says


How many stops? I can drive to Duluth, MN from where I live ~7 hours without stopping. Leave by 5am and I'm up there for lunch.


Most human beings couldn't or wouldn't want to do that level of driving without stopping.

That level of driving would require about 2 stops for 15 minutes to charge with a Tesla. So it would add at least 30 minutes to your drive.

A Tesla would get you to Duluth by 1:00PM and you will be much more rested and relaxed using Autopilot.


No I wouldn't. I like physical driving. I don't care for the tech. I'd never trust it to save me. I'm a no radio, no phone driver. I don't trust almost anyone especially other drivers. I'd bet my driving record is more impeccable than anyone that's driven a Tesla for 10 years. Over 20 years, but Tesla wasn't around. I haven't been pulled over in 22 years and even then it was only twice for mild speeding and I don't do that anymore.

Not trying to be a dick, but you also don't know Wisconsin. It's not going to be a 15 minute stop. I just want to get to my destination. I drive 7 hours frequently. I just burn through it. I'm sitting. It's literally no physical exertion. Cruise control. I can drive with my knee. I'd have a fucking panic attack if I let a car drive itself. Maybe just me, but I ain't changing and I'm not blowing an hour on an easy drive. I'd usually do 14 hours straight to the panhandle of FL. No biggie.

« First        Comments 772 - 779 of 779        Search these comments

Please register to comment:

api   best comments   contact   latest images   memes   one year ago   random   suggestions   gaiste