O/T: Talking Cars Tuesday: How long till electrics?
After 10 years or so MgoCar is starting to rust out; so I'm in the market for a new one probably next fall after I retire some debt. I'm hoping for a Taurus, because I'm old, and like me my car's trunks have gotten progressively larger over the years. With my cars at least, I like that fact.
But it got me thinking. I'm going to buy used (I always do, just my philosophy. YMMV) so I always get cars a bit behind the tech curve. But if I keep this car as long as the last one what will the automotive market look like in 2029?
Tesla, though I'm still skeptical of their build quality and their building cars in tents, appears to be getting better. And if they can get their manufacturing issues straightened out for real they do make very nice vehicles.
GM Has the Bolt, which really impresses me. Good range, decent price. If I could get it with AWD I'd do it.
Jaguar e-pace is impressive as well.
Automation is coming, but while I think it will be far more prevalent I don't think it will completely dominate the market by then (I could be wrong, I admit). By that I mean, I will still be able to legally drive if I want.
So, when I go to buy my next MgoCar when my son and daughter are in college, and I will be sad and alone at home looking for automotive fun to distract me, will it be electric? Will the entire field be electric? Will my dream car be an e-powered hellcat? Are there enough rare earth metals for all those batteries?
March 12th, 2019 at 12:54 PM ^
I logged in just to laugh at the wrap-up of this comment. ELITES! We do run everything from our secret caves you know. And we smile evilly at the thought of a "reduced economy" of Americans huddled around candles in their now-useless McMansions.
But back in reality, I wrote a white paper for a major consulting firm on vehicle pollution (gas vs. electric, "well to wheel") and the stats are, um, not close. It's roughly a wash if the electricity comes from 100% coal but as soon as you start mixing in anything less polluting electric is a clear winner.
Plus if you think there are no bad side effects from mining coal and/or fracking, comparable to the scary rare earth thing, then you probably haven't been spending much time in central PA or WV.
Been meaning to ask you, how's the challenge going?
March 13th, 2019 at 11:25 AM ^
First, I used the term "Elites" to trigger people, I am not prone to conspiracy theories where I think I am being used by hidden cabals for their nefarious purposes. However, I , you and everyone else are governed by the Law of Unintended Consequences. And all programs like the electrification of transportation will have massive consequences (and while that word has a negative connotation, some of them will be beneficial). As my name suggests, I live where solar supplementation should be de riguer. I have put together a proposal to my state rep to try and pass a requirement that all new housing has to have a DC-AC convertor built into the electrical panel so that solar panels can be added cheaply at any time. That said, until mass storage of electricity on a metropolitan scale is developed both solar and wind are best regarded as supplements, not main supply. In your white paper did you include the impact of large scale power plants idling during the day, so that they could come back on line when the sun went down? If not you missed a massive pollution contribution as that is the most inefficient way to run things. As a final aside, a good friend of mine is one of the premier ground water experts in the world. From my observations of his work he has shown no bias toward industry versus private parties. His detailed studies of the impacts of fracking in Pennsylvania does not comport with "common knowledge". There has not been any change in level of natural gas leakage nor pollution of ground water since fracking began there. There fact of the matter is that the geologic structure there is so veined and flexed, that seepage of gases has always occurred there.
You do realize that many of the existing large power plants you refer to are currently being idled at night so in the short term night time charging would provide additional load so they’d be run in a more efficient manner? Further, New natual gas plants (the only thing being built today in the US other than renewablea) ramp up and down quickly so they don’t have the problem you cite.
While I think you could have said this in a much less politically-charged way, you do hit many of the reasons that the electric car is not a panacea in terms of conservation and energy efficiency. I am sure that many of those concerns can be addressed over time - though on a personal note /opinion I am not sure how it can be done on the supply side without a shift toward nuclear..
Short term - I personally have interest in (eventually) getting an EV for the tech side of things. However, I am skeptical of doing anything other than a lease until the long-term costs are more clear.
Shouldn't Desert Wolverine espouse the virtues of Big Solar to bring jobs to Tusken Raiders and all other sand dwellers?
For perspective...
Total coal industry jobs in the US... about 75,000.
Total wind industry jobs in the US...about 100,000
Total solar industry jobs in the US... about 375,000.
Total Sears employees in the US...about 89,000.
No wonder coal power is so much cheaper than solar.
What's important is not really how many jobs a particular industry produces. What matters, especially in the area of energy generation, is how efficient the energy source is. If the cost of one job is $125K, solar is costing $37.5 billion more in just employment overhead alone. That gets factored into the price of our solar power.
There are about 160 million jobs in the US, so the solar industry is responsible for about two-tenths of a percent of them. That many new jobs are often created in a single month. It's not much. It's not really a reason to invest heavily in solar power, because 1) solar is clearly much less efficient than coal and 2) the job impact in the US is pretty minimal at best.
I don’t know if it is worse that you are so ignorant on this subject, that despite your ignorance you felt compelled to post something so completley wrong or that 4 people actually liked your comment.
While rooftop solar isn’t particularly cheap, utility scale solar is way cheaper than new coal and in some places cheaper than existing coal.
https://www.lazard.com/perspective/levelized-cost-of-energy-and-levelized-cost-of-storage-2018/
It's almost not worth commenting on this based on how wrong you are, but here goes.
1.) Fleets aren't going to change overnight to 50% electric. it's going to happen over time (most models say that by 2030, ~30% of new vehicles will be electric), so the grid will adapt
2.) Right now, the Levelized Cost of Energy for running renewables is at or below parity with natural gas, and below coal. So, no, moving to renewables will not jack up your electric bill.
3.) In terms of environmental impact, electric cars aren't perfect (as noted below), but they are substantially better than ICE
I don't think anyone is putting forth that EVs have zero impact on the environment, though many misconstrue the "zero emissions" statement to mean that.
Very simply, the ecological impact of manufacturing a Tesla vs. a comparable ICE auto is drastically lower. Comparing the negative impact of mining battery materials to that of everything that goes into all the parts (iron/metal/rubber/glass/plastic) in the engine and transmission/drivetrain isn't even close. So.....not zero.....but waaaay better.
The disparity between the two types of cars when operating them is self-evident. One produces little to no emissions and some amount of pollution in generating the energy it uses, the other produces huge levels of pollution to run and arguably even more in extracting and refining the gasoline it runs on.
"Crashing grid" is an easily solved problem and one that will not likely ever be encountered, because there will never be a 50% conversion to EV that immediate. The transition will occur gradually and utilities will be able to plan and compensate accordingly, probably through something as simple as pricing to lower rates later at night as an incentive to charge later.
I'm green. Most people I know are green. Literally none of them would be in favor of banning ICE vehicles. Ever. As per previous mentions, the market will take care of the transition for the vast majority of people to switch. If some people want to hold out and drive ICEs, no problem. Your gas will be VERY expensive and you may have to drive a ways to get it, but have at it.
It is a simple fact that sooner or later fossil fuels will run out, the only thing you can argue about is when. At some point the economy will need to depend on renewable energy sources. Curse at the sky all you want, it is inevitable. The smart move would be to do that as quickly as possible and stop the massive amount of pollution being released into our environment. I won't even get into climate change, since I can guess we probably don't agree there, I'm just referring to the massive amount of pollution it generates. Unless you want to argue that pollution isn't bad.
As for solar and wind power, take a look at what Germany and Norway plan to accomplish in the not too distant future. I tend to agree with some here that we may need to build some nuclear power capabilities for a transitional 30-50 years, but all these are far cleaner AND cheaper than coal. Coal is and will be increasingly expensive to extract, all the easy seams/deposits are gone. What makes coal expensive is that instead of pushing the top of a mountain off to get at a large/rarified source, they now have to drill into/through way more rock/granite to glean a much smaller payoff. It is the reason that black lung is much more prevalent now in miners than even a few years ago...the rock drilling produces way more powdered silica, the factor that actually damages the lungs. Nothing is going to save coal, it's time is past. cling to it all you want, but the writing is on the wall.
Bird cuisinarts...lol......please don't tell me that your concern for birds is what causes you to object to wind turbines, because you are going to have quite the time trying to compare that to the negative effects of fossil fuels from oil spills, toxic mine run-off/effluvium, air pollution, water pollution, wetlands destruction, etc., etc. ad infinitum. Again, an exponential difference between the two, not even close. "Who will save the birds!?" laughable.
OK...let's look at "elites" now. Last I checked, the global oil industry was controlled by, and the main income source for.....the U.S. middle and lower classes? Not quite. In the U.S. alone, the oil industry is an unbelievably powerful and concentrated force, both economically and politically (the same thing these days, really). Globally even more so, with the controlling families from OPEC countries being arguably the richest group of people in the world, not to mention the newly minted billionaires in Russia and the people that plundered all the oil wealth in Venezuela. The idea that people supporting green energy against fossil fuels is somehow analogous of ecologically minded elites vs. the downtrodden poor from the fossil fuel industry is patently absurd. Quite the opposite. There isn't a richer and more cohesive group of people than those behind pushing the fossil fuel industry agenda, pollution be damned. From the Rockefeller Family Trust themselves in 2016 when they divested all their holdings from the fossil fuel industry, "While the global community works to eliminate the use of fossil fuels, it makes little sense -- financially or ethically -- to continue holding investments in these companies," the fund said on Wednesday in a statement. "There is no sane rationale for companies to continue to explore for new sources of hydrocarbons." You've been sold a bill of goods from the actual "elite" (who don't give two shits about you, your lungs, your kids, your water, your education), that people trying to save the planet are trying to take away your cars. Your a rube.
*You're
Yeah well, a good portion of that was done by speech and speed to text is my mortal enemy.
Lighten up, Francis.
Everytime someone sggests stronger environmental policy related iin anway to power generation we hear about how it will crash the grid. Does anybody remember the massve lackouts when tougher sulpher dioxide reglaons went into effect in the 90’stuher Nox reductions in the 2000s, tougher mercury regulations in the 2010s, staye renewable andards that hae been increasng for 10 plus years?
March 12th, 2019 at 10:12 PM ^
This write up makes good points about the “long tailpipe” of the electric car. As for rare earth metals we surrendered that technology to China long ago. We effectively will shift dependence from Middle Eastern oil to Chinese rare earth metals. This is another under the radar crisis that we face as we are heavily dependent on China and Russia to provide even our Department of Defense with rare earth metals more on that below
https://www.politico.com/agenda/story/2018/05/15/are-electric-cars-worse-for-the-environment-000660
March 12th, 2019 at 10:28 PM ^
The demise of coal fired power generation is coming about for reasons other than a push by greenies, although that is part of the equation. Natural gas, which the US has in huge amounts, is a much easier source of power and considerably easier to deal with in terms of precipitators, scrubbers, etc. and its delivery is through a pipeline. Economics of other fuels is what will kill coal power in the US. Is anyone even building new coal generating plants? If so,there aren't many.
No one is building new coal power plants in the US and most companies are shutting down tthe ones they own. Coal is no longer the cheapest source of power and it can’t handle fluctuating load like natural gas plants can.
March 12th, 2019 at 12:33 PM ^
Safety integrity (ASIL) will ground the fleet for at least another decade for full autonomy.
I've been a huge autonomous vehicles skeptic. I just don't see how anyone makes the switch on a large scale. Do driverless cars share the road with human-driven vehicles? For how long? Does there need to be a "zero day" where all human-driven cars are no longer allowed on the roads so we can switch over to all-autonomous? What if I'm running late and need to drive 80 miles per hour to make an important meeting and my autonomous car won't let me?
What I DO like seeing happening is driverless/autonomous technology working its way into human-driven cars to make them safer and more efficient. I think that should be the goal. Like JFK said about the space program in his "we will go to the moon this decade" speech, "...because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills." I think roads worldwide filled with driverless vehicles taking people to work downtown and then going and parking in massive lots in the suburbs waiting to go pick them up is like colonizing the moon and Mars. It's never going to happen, but the technologies we develop exploring the steps to get there will still make the world a better place.
March 12th, 2019 at 10:22 PM ^
I agree, the integration of fully autonomous vehicles with driven will be the biggest hurdle. I still have a hard time understanding how these vehicles will negotiate hard winter conditions where a 4 lane freeway becomes a 2-1/2 lane. Do they follow the established 2 track or stick with the GPS coordinates or lane markers on a less safe surface?
I honestly think the route to the autonomous vehicle will be the flying car which will not be allowed to be driven manually. They can follow air highways and be free of interacting with unpredictable human drivers.
March 12th, 2019 at 10:34 PM ^
I do like the idea of how much better traffic could flow with automation. No more stop and go, floor it in order to get to the next red light fastest, congestion. Imagine all the cars in front of you going in unison when the light turns green. Or even more strange and maybe scary a lack of red & green lights but a mesh of cars going across intersections at the same time, timed with autonomous precision so as not to T bone each other.
The possibilities are fascinating. Cars will probably have the option of fractional ownership where “owners” get a car on demand, but they don’t stay in the driveway. It takes you to work or for groceries and home then picks up another owner. You can order up a 2 seat convertible one day and have an 8 seat SUV the next.
The fractional ownership thing is one of those imagined futures where, if it was really going to happen, it would be happening now. It doesn't need autonomous vehicles to happen; you could already buy into a vehicle timeshare of sorts if anyone thought that was a worthwhile business model.
The only thing that AVs unlock in that model is for the car to go from owner to owner by itself. Otherwise, what people like about car ownership is the ability to get in a car right now and go anywhere. Not "car will be here in 12 minutes".
I actually don't see the car ownership model changing all that drastically in the future, tbh.
How exactly could a fractional ownership model work if the car is parked in your garage? It’s easy to see how it benefits someone especially if your car “resides” in the 313 and you have to pay outrageous insurance rates. If the car isn’t sitting at 1 house then the cost of ownership can drop dramatically. Then a true share of multiple vehicles is pooled with several owners. This can only be accomplished by a vehicle that takes itself to whoever requests it. Given a large enough network it can be faster than requesting an Uber. If you can save $1000s a year I think people will forego the convenience of hopping into a car in the driveway.
March 12th, 2019 at 12:47 PM ^
Once Elon gets his Tesla down to $15,000 like he wants, it would be silly to buy a gas car.
I wouldn't touch a Tesla, but if the Bolt was 15k cheaper I would have bought one instead of my Cruze. If just to avoid the gas lines at Sam's.
It's always about the money. If electric cars ever get to price parity with gas cars it'll revolutionize the car industry. With location and travel based exceptions it would then almost be illogical to own a gas powered car then.
The only people who buy electrics now have enough money to de-prioritize the economics of the purchase for others things they find of value in their transportation purchasing equation.
March 12th, 2019 at 12:57 PM ^
I bought my Leaf, all electric car in 2012.
I have put 20,000 miles on it and it’s is still a “kick” every time I drive it.
I have heard all of the complaints about battery costs, environmental costs,
life of the car costs, on and on and on.
For me, my grandchildren who have all ridden in the electric car, all of their lives,
they will always live in a world where an all electric car is completely normal. Unlike my generation.
Electric cars are not for everyone. Just like a school bus, or dump truck, or a van, isn’t for
everyone.
But if you drive 20 or 30 miles shopping or running here and there every day, it’s great!
Charges up while I sleep, costs about 4 cents a mile to drive it.
My electric car bill is around $18.00 a month.
Never had a repair, just new tires.
Best car I have ever owned, flat out!
I am glad for you - sounds like you have found a perfect vehicle for your needs.
However, unless you have a typo in your main post, I am sure you realize that you drive that vehicle an extremely low amount compared to the average American. 20k total miles over than lifespan is only about 3k miles per year by my calculations. Given that math I would guess a similar-sized gasoline powered car would give cost results that are at least close to your EV. (Although less than 20k on a set of tires is quite low unless you live in a desert like I do.)
I probably put close to 60k miles per year on personal and rental vehicles. The big question for me with EVs remains the long-term costs - in years or miles as the case may be.
My other issue is with range on the batteries. I was intrigued with how the GM Volt bridged this with the gas charging-engine but have seen this has fallen out of favor in newer EVs - I assume it is a cost thing?
I think in part it's an inefficiency thing. If you can make a long-range electric vehicle without the internal combustion engine, you can ditch the whole setup and save weight and significant costs. You also get additional storage and efficiency of design.
Rest of the world has solved the long range EV problem by using electric trains. I drive distances in the US which I have always used to travel by train in India. If the train system was more developed here, then mid and long ranges can be covered by trains and cities can be covered by EVs. Unfortunately, that solution is not happening any time soon.
Besides that, I love the long drives we go every summer. Cheaper than flying a family of four and then renting a car on the other end.
AZBlue, the math is right, as I said, you have to look at your specific use.
I am retired and spend the winter in Florida, I spend the summer on my sailboat in Canadian waters of the North Channel. So the car sits unused for 5-6 months a year.
Low mileage is a fact of my life, and has been for many years. It's not an ideal car for everyone.
The electric car isn't my only car, so for long trips to Florida or Northern Michigan to the boat, I have a gasoline powered SUV.
Walmart is 2.5 miles away from my Michigan home, Meijers, 4.5 miles away, Home Depot, 6 miles and Lowes, 5 miles. Dr's office 3 miles. My Leaf, qualified for the $7500.00 tax credit and DET energy installed the car charging station for free, as an early adopter.
They also have electric car users on a special meter and rate as long as I charge between 11 P.M. and 9 AM.
I figure that if everyone who's living style is like mine, uses electric vehicles, we reduce our gasoline consumption and keep the price low. Reduce our need for foreign oil and help to nullify the influence of the oil producing countrys.
It’s all good.
As a taxpayer, I’m glad you got that $7,500.
It sounds like you needed that subsidy, and obviously there wouldn’t be anything else that might have been a better use of that government spending.
JFW, you live up north like i do. unless there's a way to heat the battery your car will be dead as a stone on those cold days. it was 0 this a.m.
Beyond some of the other larger issues others have brought up, for me, overall quality still needs to get better and overall cost needs to go down. Why would I buy an electric that is twice the upfront cost and will start having issues after 5 years when I can buy a gasline car that will go 300-400k miles with just basic maintenance and won't nickle & dime me to death?
Serious question, not snark: Do electric cars have more repair costs than gasoline cars? One poster above said that his 2012 Nissan Leaf hasn't had any repairs yet. Another said that Tesla's which have been on the road for several years are still at >80% battery capacity. I would imagine that the quality of these cars gets better every day
FYI, the leaf owner also said that they have put a total of 20k miles on the car since 2012.
With a max range of 60 to 100 miles (I think) how much mileage do you think the average Tesla sees compared to a standard car? I am all for reducing use as a way of reducing one's carbon footprint, but these cars make that choice for the buyer (or more aptly, the buyer has made that choice before purchasing).
Side note - I often stop at a travel center on the north side of the grapevine off of I-5 (north of LA) that has dozens of EV charging stations. I always wonder how someone in a Tesla is going to make the same 400 mi run between LA and Sacramento and/or the Bay Area.....I assume several stops at charging stations - not sure how long it takes to fully charge one.
Back to your question, The only fair comparison would be similar age and usage patterns. Manufacturers have been refining reliability and upkeep costs etc. on internal combustion vehicles for decades while EVs as relatively new tech most likely with much room to improve in those areas.
Range of Tesla Models S and 3 are both over 300 miles under optimal conditions, with the Model X coming close. Assuming a full battery, would probably have to stop once - maybe twice - on the way.
Hyundai Kona and Audi e-tron are both around 250 miles range, so close. Bolt, I-Pace, and Leaf e+ are all over 200, also.
Definitely a case of YMMV based on driving habits, weather conditions, landscape, etc.
Wow - Did some research after my post and saw - as you noted - how much the ranges have improved since the last time I looked closely. Between that and the aesthetics of the Tesla it looks like I will get outvoted (1 to 1) the next time my wife gets a car....
For what its worth I’ve never spent a dime on the electric portion of our 2005 Toyota Highlander Hybrid. I’ve spent at least several thousand on the internal combustion engine. Since they are in the same car, they have obviously seen the exact same milage and other conditions.
There's so many variables and the tech isn't wide spread yet so it's tough to get an accurate gauge from a numbers standpoint. However, we do know which manufactures make good/bad gasoline vehicles so it's reasonable to assume that just because the vehicle is electric doesn't mean it's not going to still suffer from having poor quality components, cheaply made, corners cut, etc. That's more what I'm referring to. I personally would generally never consider any non Toyota / Honda / Subaru / Hyundai car (trucks are another matter) unless the other manufacturers really up their game because I'm the type that wants to drive the vehicle for as long as possible for as little amount of money as possible.
Electric cars should have SIGNIFICANTLY lower cost of maintenance than a gasoline counterpart. Electric motors are dead simple, just bunch of wires and a magnet. There is no cooling system (except for battery, perhaps), high pressure liquids flowing through, and nothing burning. Electric motor should last practically until the car literally falls apart.
And with brake regeneration, your brakes should last far longer than a normal car as well.
The only maintenance is really with battery replacement. With the prices of car battery falling rapidly, that should not be too big of a deal within next 4 to 5 years.
China is supposed to be going full-on EV starting in something like 2025. China is the largest car market. So, electric cars are going to happen at industrial scale. No car manufacturer is going to turn their back on the China market. GM has decent market share in China. Their EV plans are driven by China.
Battery technology is improving and everyone is working on it now. $$ to be made in that market, so companies are going to find a way to get a slice of that pie.
What holds me back from an EV is range. The wife and I will load up the car and go for a 500 mile drive during vacations. This will probably put me at the tail end of EV adopters. Also, I love cars so the thought of a self driving car is completely unappealing to me. Let me have the fun not robo-driver.
It's not so much range, but charging time. Or I should say, the combination of the two.
When I can have an electric car that charges from E to F in the same amount of time it takes to fill the gas tank, then I will consider an electric car. I'm not interested in taking a road trip and spending 45 minutes - or even 20 - every 250 miles. I can spend 5 minutes every 350 miles in my gas car.
I'd rather have a PHEV like the Volt. It's the best of both worlds. For long trips I can fill the gas tank. For commuting I can plug it in at the end of the day. Unfortunately, PHEVs seem to be going by the wayside as automakers focus more on extending battery range in BEVs. That's disappointing to me because I still do not want to wait half an hour to charge the vehicle and don't need more than 50 miles of range or so around town. (More in the winter.)
I have a Tesla Model 3 Performance. I live and work in AA and would be happy to show any MGoBloggers around the car. It was great this winter - I'm looking to address any skepticism that exists about the Tesla brand or EVs in general. This has been the best car I've ever owned and I truly look forward to driving it every day.
Great car isn't it? I bought mine in Aug '18. Pretty interesting that we are gaining extra range and increased 0-60 speed (3.2 seconds) during the Mar 15th over air update.
It's sad reading through this post and see people comment on EVs with some pretty outdated views. Check supercharger v3 for new charge times,Model 3 LR can recover up to 75 miles of charge in 5 min (rates of up to 1000 miles per hour). How often do people really drive over 250 miles? In the event you have to the car's GPS will route you with supercharger locations taken into account.
The interior is simple for a reason. Remember when everyone had a blackberry or a palm? Now everyone has a touchscreen phone. It took about a week to get used to, but now ICE vehicles seem outdated. The car is a piece of technology and I trust the autopilot to get me home 50 miles every day. While driving in traffic, it is surprising how much energy is saved by allowing the car to drive itself. I am still alert and able to override at any moment.
How many other cars release software updates that improve the vehicle? It's unfortunate that disliking Tesla and EVs is a thing, despite anyone who owns one telling you what a great vehicle it is. Model Y is being released soon, hopefully getting the crossover crowd.
Anyone who owns one telling you what a great vehicle it is, that's because they're early adopters who thought it was a great vehicle even before they bought one and it would take a lot to change their minds. Essentially, the car would have to not do what it advertised it would. It could fail to do a lot of other things and they wouldn't care, because early adopters will happily make all sorts of tradeoffs.
What Tesla has yet to do is get into the automotive market of people who are shopping around - which is the vast majority of the market. Those people do not say things like "sure, the bumper fell off in the rain, but I love my Tesla!" They say things like "I can't believe the bumper actually fell off this shitty car and I'm never, ever buying this brand again!" And given how infrequently people buy cars, they always mean it.
If Tesla wants to be a big boy, it has to play by big boy rules, one of which is, no complaining about people disliking the brand. That happens to everyone, sometimes for entirely rational reasons, and sometimes for entirely irrational ones. And one reason (of many) that there are people who don't like Tesla is that every other car manufacturer figured out decades ago how to keep bumpers attached to cars.
On the question of "how often do people drive over 250 miles" - the answer is "often enough that it matters in the purchase of a car." People don't buy cars for their average use, they buy them for their expected maximum use. If they have to haul things or tow things, even if infrequently, their car needs to do that.
Lastly, I can't speak for everyone, but if the car is in autopilot mode, I don't want to have to be alert at every moment. I can't see the benefit of "car kinda drives itself but driver still has to pay attention." Either give me control or let me zonk out completely - the middle road holds no interest.
I get the back and forth on range of EVs but what would piss me off is that morning when I come outside and realize I forgot to plug in the car the night before.
Even though it’s “my fault” I’m still blaming Musk.
Get a big ass gas guzzler. They may be gone in a generation so enjoy them while you can.
I bought my first truck in September. Glad I can confidently say I'm much more American than all the electric Communists in this thread.
/s
Both sides get way too much money from "big oil" to really put in the legislation for this type of technology. Its going to be up to the people and companies to spearhead this.