The EV business sector is not being developed for profit, nor is it to satisfy market demand, nor does it help to “save the planet,” and it’s killing off jobs. So why is it happening?
2 different yet Interesting perspectives on the EV issue from folks I've worked with and respect.
It's a timely conversation as I have 2 vehicles almost at lease end and I'm pondering whether to switch to an EV on at least one. All three of us are "Car Guys" and we worked together building the 12 Volt Audio program at Harman / JBL so it's a leap of faith to switch gears suddenly and embrace the new frontier of Batteries vs Gas, Amperes vs Octane. Being old school, I love a cockpit filled with Gauges, Switches, Knobs and Levers such as my current BMW 330i. Sitting in a Tesla with just an iPad-like screen and shuffling through menus to complete a task that a simple button push would accomplish is not something I long for. I love shopping for a new vehicle and poring over the myriad of brochures I would collect, comparing the interiors and performance specs was the fun part, the purchase was almost anticlimatic. I just can't get excited about EV's in the same way. Perhaps a Hybrid might be a way to put my toes in the EV pool before going headfirst.
Bob, you were a Slot Car guy, these are just larger scale Slot Cars 1/1 scale. As we get closer to the middle of the decade the debate will intensify and perhaps better choices will emerge.
My major concern is cities like NYC, Chicago, Boston & Los Angeles with high concentrations of apartment dwellers sharing a limited amount of Charging Stations.
Going car shopping - what a treat! I'll be doing the same later this year.
Found a good article on at-home charging that goes into the weeds a bit but illustrates the challenges faced by EV owners to learn what goes into a predictable charging experience.
Hi Keith. It's been a long time. I hope all is well with you my friend.
However, I completely disagree with you on almost all the points except for the ones about the Model T.
Your arguments have some merit if you go on the assumption that advances will stop where they are today and no further progress will be made. As you know, I am a long time car buff. I love the sound and feel of a high performance car, and continue to be a manual-shifting lover of "driving" as opposed to just steering. The idea of autonomous vehicles makes me want to puke. But, on the other hand I can't wait to buy an electric vehicle. It will be soon. I'm just waiting for a few more choices that aren't SUV's. Why you ask? Because they make so much sense! The performance is excellent, maintenance is profoundly reduced by the simple elimination of virtually all the parts that wear out. No oil changes. No cooling flushes. No Spark plugs. No coils. No PCV systems. No vacuum leaks. No throttle bodies or injectors. No transmission. I could go on all day.
Even with current technology, and factoring the additional pollution from initial manufacture, the crossover point for most typical drivers is in the first 6-months to 1-year where the total lifecycle pollution of EV's becomes less than an equivalent IC vehicle, and it just continues to get better after that.
Range, for most people is practically a non-issue if you think it through. With 250-300 mile range, a typical user can go for days without a charge. The logical use model is to do your daily commute and charge overnight, when electricity usage is already low, and you wake up to a full charge in the morning to do it all over again. My commute is 25 miles each way. The daily usage will be extremely small. I don't know about you, but when I go on a long trip, I need to stop every 2-3 hours anyway to take care of nature's call. You can sit at a quick charger for, at most about a 1/2 hour and be almost full again. Gives me time to get a burger and a Coke. So for the occasional trip, it's no major sacrifice. And, with typical brilliance from Mr Musk, Superchargers are almost always near shopping and restaurants, or highway rest areas. Others are sure to follow.
The other oft-quoted "problem" with EV's is the cost of batteries. They are expensive if you have to replace them out of warranty. However, the reality of the situation is that that is an extremely rare occurrence in the lifecycle of a typical EV. Vehicle manufacturers typically have 8-10 year/100000 mile battery warrantees. California ups that to 150,000, so most initial users will not need to ever replace them. Even then, at 150,000 miles you are likely to have over 80% capacity left, so a 300 mile range drops to 240 miles, which is of no concern with daily use for most people. This cost will be of concern to used vehicle buyers, because they may be the ones to foot the bill. And this fear may affect use vehicle values.
But, by the time a sufficient number of batteries actually need replacing, battery recycling will be the norm. Even now, people in the industry are claiming that 80% of the material in batteries can be recycled. This will obviously reduce the environmental impact of Lithium mining, but with increased production, recycling, and alternative uses for used batteries such as residential power backups, the current early-adopter costs will become more reasonable.
And there is the prospect of even newer battery technology in the future. Remember when Nickel-Cadmium batteries were the rage? It wasn't that long ago.
The bottom-line is that I can't see any of the popular arguments against EV's standing up to the inevitable progress of time. Elon Musk and Tesla demonstrated that EV's are not glorified golf carts, and the rest of the industry is still catching up. It's happening globally, and it won't stop. While I'm not a fan of the government intervening when inappropriate, it seems to me that what they are doing, by incentivizing the development of new technology and infrastructure to support it, is totally appropriate in this case. It's coming, and the USA is competing with powerful entities globally who are developing and implementing the technology. If we want to compete, we need to develop as fast or faster, or we will find ourselves left in the dust. If there are any smart people left in the oil companies, they should be figuring out how to adapt their business model to monetize the new tech rather than lobbying to fight it. Fighting it is a losing battle.
Hey Bob, thanks for your sincere (and lengthy) response.
I think the point I am making here is that EVs do not (and cannot) satisfy the same use cases as ICE models. If EVs work for you, that's great - I had the opportunity to drive an electrified Hyundai Kona for about eight months. Similar experience as yours; for commutes of 30 miles or less, tooling around town running errands, and not having to tow anything. I also have a garage with a charger. For my needs, the EV made sense as well.
This is not everyone's experience - the journeyman electrician or contractor that hauls tools and materials from job locations that could be over an hour in each direction, for instance. Forcing this guy into an electric truck will put him out of business. And if he lives in an apartment complex, the availability of an overnight charging station isn't guaranteed.
I'm glad you brought up forward progress of EV technology and surrounding developments of batteries, charging infrastructure and software. Nobody is suggesting that we should stop this development. There are many use cases for EVs that will benefit from this progress. But we cannot leap with both feet into broad adoption of EVs in their current form and expect them to replace ICE vehicles, for reasons that I have already outlined.
I wonder if you can comment on the more salient points I made about the massive losses each automaker is experience in their EV development programs, or the fact that after two decades of EV availability (with healthy subsidies and saturation advertising) EV sales are still single-digit within the overall market signaling that very few people actually want one, or that tens of thousands of jobs are being shed to offset the billions of $ lost to chasing unrealistic EV dreams.
I would love to see technology and the laws of physics make all of this happen; my EV experience was quite good considering I didn't have to actually buy the thing. But we're nowhere near where we need to be and to impose mandates at an arbitrary date for banning all ICE vehicles is reckless and destructive - we first need to get to the point in time when the technology catches up to our realistic expectations.
My Model T analogy was a bit more than a history lesson. It tells us that the market will react to products and services that are clearly better than that which they are replacing. Changing the propulsion system of a vehicle is not making it clearly better. In the EV example, it is doing the opposite. The EV movement is one that offers a solution in search of a problem that doesn't exist, at least among a majority of the population.
You make excellent points on the US needing to be competitive, but it's more important to get it right than to get it quick.
I could go on, but it's almost happy hour. Cheers!
Yeah, you're dead right! That's why I'm sticking with my reliable and dependable horse. These new gasoline motor carriages will never catch on with their foul smelling exhaust and noise. Besides, it takes too long for the horse drawn carriage to deliver the gasoline I need to fill up. There is no market for them.
Pretty funny and I get where you're coming from. Nice to hear from you!
The Model T offered some unique advantages over the horse as history has proven. Lower maintenance, better reliability, can carry more people...the market preferred the machine over the animal without being bought off or coerced by the government.
However, electrifying a vehicle doesn't provide any value - it only makes the vehicle more expensive to own and drive, gives you less range, is a real problem to charge if you're traveling...I could go on. Point being, it's a solution in search of a problem and everyone knows it.
Keith, Bob,
2 different yet Interesting perspectives on the EV issue from folks I've worked with and respect.
It's a timely conversation as I have 2 vehicles almost at lease end and I'm pondering whether to switch to an EV on at least one. All three of us are "Car Guys" and we worked together building the 12 Volt Audio program at Harman / JBL so it's a leap of faith to switch gears suddenly and embrace the new frontier of Batteries vs Gas, Amperes vs Octane. Being old school, I love a cockpit filled with Gauges, Switches, Knobs and Levers such as my current BMW 330i. Sitting in a Tesla with just an iPad-like screen and shuffling through menus to complete a task that a simple button push would accomplish is not something I long for. I love shopping for a new vehicle and poring over the myriad of brochures I would collect, comparing the interiors and performance specs was the fun part, the purchase was almost anticlimatic. I just can't get excited about EV's in the same way. Perhaps a Hybrid might be a way to put my toes in the EV pool before going headfirst.
Bob, you were a Slot Car guy, these are just larger scale Slot Cars 1/1 scale. As we get closer to the middle of the decade the debate will intensify and perhaps better choices will emerge.
My major concern is cities like NYC, Chicago, Boston & Los Angeles with high concentrations of apartment dwellers sharing a limited amount of Charging Stations.
Going car shopping - what a treat! I'll be doing the same later this year.
Found a good article on at-home charging that goes into the weeds a bit but illustrates the challenges faced by EV owners to learn what goes into a predictable charging experience.
https://www.cars.com/articles/five-things-that-dictate-how-fast-your-ev-charges-at-home-437767
Something to chew on as you ponder protons versus petrol.
Hi Keith. It's been a long time. I hope all is well with you my friend.
However, I completely disagree with you on almost all the points except for the ones about the Model T.
Your arguments have some merit if you go on the assumption that advances will stop where they are today and no further progress will be made. As you know, I am a long time car buff. I love the sound and feel of a high performance car, and continue to be a manual-shifting lover of "driving" as opposed to just steering. The idea of autonomous vehicles makes me want to puke. But, on the other hand I can't wait to buy an electric vehicle. It will be soon. I'm just waiting for a few more choices that aren't SUV's. Why you ask? Because they make so much sense! The performance is excellent, maintenance is profoundly reduced by the simple elimination of virtually all the parts that wear out. No oil changes. No cooling flushes. No Spark plugs. No coils. No PCV systems. No vacuum leaks. No throttle bodies or injectors. No transmission. I could go on all day.
Even with current technology, and factoring the additional pollution from initial manufacture, the crossover point for most typical drivers is in the first 6-months to 1-year where the total lifecycle pollution of EV's becomes less than an equivalent IC vehicle, and it just continues to get better after that.
Range, for most people is practically a non-issue if you think it through. With 250-300 mile range, a typical user can go for days without a charge. The logical use model is to do your daily commute and charge overnight, when electricity usage is already low, and you wake up to a full charge in the morning to do it all over again. My commute is 25 miles each way. The daily usage will be extremely small. I don't know about you, but when I go on a long trip, I need to stop every 2-3 hours anyway to take care of nature's call. You can sit at a quick charger for, at most about a 1/2 hour and be almost full again. Gives me time to get a burger and a Coke. So for the occasional trip, it's no major sacrifice. And, with typical brilliance from Mr Musk, Superchargers are almost always near shopping and restaurants, or highway rest areas. Others are sure to follow.
The other oft-quoted "problem" with EV's is the cost of batteries. They are expensive if you have to replace them out of warranty. However, the reality of the situation is that that is an extremely rare occurrence in the lifecycle of a typical EV. Vehicle manufacturers typically have 8-10 year/100000 mile battery warrantees. California ups that to 150,000, so most initial users will not need to ever replace them. Even then, at 150,000 miles you are likely to have over 80% capacity left, so a 300 mile range drops to 240 miles, which is of no concern with daily use for most people. This cost will be of concern to used vehicle buyers, because they may be the ones to foot the bill. And this fear may affect use vehicle values.
But, by the time a sufficient number of batteries actually need replacing, battery recycling will be the norm. Even now, people in the industry are claiming that 80% of the material in batteries can be recycled. This will obviously reduce the environmental impact of Lithium mining, but with increased production, recycling, and alternative uses for used batteries such as residential power backups, the current early-adopter costs will become more reasonable.
And there is the prospect of even newer battery technology in the future. Remember when Nickel-Cadmium batteries were the rage? It wasn't that long ago.
The bottom-line is that I can't see any of the popular arguments against EV's standing up to the inevitable progress of time. Elon Musk and Tesla demonstrated that EV's are not glorified golf carts, and the rest of the industry is still catching up. It's happening globally, and it won't stop. While I'm not a fan of the government intervening when inappropriate, it seems to me that what they are doing, by incentivizing the development of new technology and infrastructure to support it, is totally appropriate in this case. It's coming, and the USA is competing with powerful entities globally who are developing and implementing the technology. If we want to compete, we need to develop as fast or faster, or we will find ourselves left in the dust. If there are any smart people left in the oil companies, they should be figuring out how to adapt their business model to monetize the new tech rather than lobbying to fight it. Fighting it is a losing battle.
I could go on, but the horse is hungry.
Hey Bob, thanks for your sincere (and lengthy) response.
I think the point I am making here is that EVs do not (and cannot) satisfy the same use cases as ICE models. If EVs work for you, that's great - I had the opportunity to drive an electrified Hyundai Kona for about eight months. Similar experience as yours; for commutes of 30 miles or less, tooling around town running errands, and not having to tow anything. I also have a garage with a charger. For my needs, the EV made sense as well.
This is not everyone's experience - the journeyman electrician or contractor that hauls tools and materials from job locations that could be over an hour in each direction, for instance. Forcing this guy into an electric truck will put him out of business. And if he lives in an apartment complex, the availability of an overnight charging station isn't guaranteed.
I'm glad you brought up forward progress of EV technology and surrounding developments of batteries, charging infrastructure and software. Nobody is suggesting that we should stop this development. There are many use cases for EVs that will benefit from this progress. But we cannot leap with both feet into broad adoption of EVs in their current form and expect them to replace ICE vehicles, for reasons that I have already outlined.
I wonder if you can comment on the more salient points I made about the massive losses each automaker is experience in their EV development programs, or the fact that after two decades of EV availability (with healthy subsidies and saturation advertising) EV sales are still single-digit within the overall market signaling that very few people actually want one, or that tens of thousands of jobs are being shed to offset the billions of $ lost to chasing unrealistic EV dreams.
I would love to see technology and the laws of physics make all of this happen; my EV experience was quite good considering I didn't have to actually buy the thing. But we're nowhere near where we need to be and to impose mandates at an arbitrary date for banning all ICE vehicles is reckless and destructive - we first need to get to the point in time when the technology catches up to our realistic expectations.
My Model T analogy was a bit more than a history lesson. It tells us that the market will react to products and services that are clearly better than that which they are replacing. Changing the propulsion system of a vehicle is not making it clearly better. In the EV example, it is doing the opposite. The EV movement is one that offers a solution in search of a problem that doesn't exist, at least among a majority of the population.
You make excellent points on the US needing to be competitive, but it's more important to get it right than to get it quick.
I could go on, but it's almost happy hour. Cheers!
Yeah, you're dead right! That's why I'm sticking with my reliable and dependable horse. These new gasoline motor carriages will never catch on with their foul smelling exhaust and noise. Besides, it takes too long for the horse drawn carriage to deliver the gasoline I need to fill up. There is no market for them.
Pretty funny and I get where you're coming from. Nice to hear from you!
The Model T offered some unique advantages over the horse as history has proven. Lower maintenance, better reliability, can carry more people...the market preferred the machine over the animal without being bought off or coerced by the government.
However, electrifying a vehicle doesn't provide any value - it only makes the vehicle more expensive to own and drive, gives you less range, is a real problem to charge if you're traveling...I could go on. Point being, it's a solution in search of a problem and everyone knows it.
Boy I sure miss those buggy whips...