There was once a time where cars in CA had to pass "special" emissions standards. So much so that older and out of state cars struggled. Car makers advertised "CA emissions" or similar. But the demand and desire to simply supply chains brought us to "50 State emissions."
I'm only an "expert" relative to most people here. There's many people who know more than I. But to answer your question, They actually built the infrastructure to charge these vehicles. Both power and also at the consumer end.
Those are choices made by the USA. It's not a technical issue.
They make good cars. The ones my dealer drives have heat, air conditioning, GPS, and seem to be crashworthy enough. Tesla exports cars from China because they are cheaper to make there
apnews.com
Tesla isn't the only option. Just like ICE cars, there's a range of options and prices.
Ok, what about Norway, where EVs have 80% market share? They also need to build all the infrastructure. Norway isn't a dictatorship.
People love to cherry pick situations where EV would not work and then use that as a jumping point to complain about them. EV are not for everyone just like that ford f250 lariat which incidentally costs more than most cars isn't for everyone. From what I see, most people driving trucks could get by with a small pickup but Americans love their trucks. Another constant complaint I hear from people..well you can't drive your car on long trips. Well you(I) can but why would I want to. I drive a Polestar and my wife drives an Etron and we have a 22kw solar array on our house. I don't drive a lot but she does and we end up saving about $500/mo in gas. I'd gladly rent a car and easily come out ahead to drive any long distance.
First let me say (remind people) that I am and have been very pro-EV.Ok, what about Norway, where EVs have 80% market share? They also need to build all the infrastructure. Norway isn't a dictatorship.
These Countries Are Adopting Electric Vehicles the Fastest
Norway and China are among the top countries scaling electric vehicles at rates needed to meet international climate goals.www.wri.org
www.vox.com
The situations are cherry picked specifically to show that EVs don’t work for everyone. I personally am not against EVs or have any bad will towards those who drive them but when my states governor is actively trying to pass laws that mandate cars sold after 2035 can only be electric that’s where I draw the line. Electric cars aren’t for everyone and the government should have no place in forcing them on people. That’s about all I can say about the topic without it turning very political.
I wasn't trying to say one country is better than another. The same reference I cited also showed Iceland (around 40%) and Sweden (around 30%) EV market share of new vehicles.First let me say (remind people) that I am and have been very pro-EV.
But people keep pointing out how much better Norway is than us. In some ways, that is true. I love Norway and it's people. But it's not a fair comparison.
Although they are not a dictatorship, they are a blend of Democratic Socialism (think Bernie Sanders). They can do this because of their relatively small population and their huge oil revenues, and a much much much smaller defense budget than us. Thus, they can afford many of the "feel-good" programs that we can't. Therefore, many of their people are very happy liberals.
That said, even Norway is currently rethinking their EV status and they are realizing that EVs are not the answer to all the climate problems.
Why Norway — the poster child for electric cars — is having second thoughts
Electric cars are crucial, but not enough to solve climate change. We can’t let them crowd out car-free transit options.
I haven't heard any of my friends or colleagues being coerced into buying a particular car. That's also not something they would tell me over electronic communication (nor would I ask). To the the best of my knowledge, they got tax incentives to buy an EV if they chose to do so.
Another point to back up what I said. As much as I am pro-EV, I am equally anti-mandate and anti-subsidizing with taxpayer money. I and many others have complained about the mandates and subsides many times.
Norway, Sweden, and Iceland seem to manage. I understand it is cold and dark in those countries in winter. Northern China also gets cold, away from the coast. People got a "wake-up call" last winter when a cold snap kept cars from charging properly.
apnews.com
Coal subsidies, subsidies to oil companies (https://www.eesi.org/papers/view/fact-sheet-proposals-to-reduce-fossil-fuel-subsidies-january-2024). Many EVs companies in the USA are past the time their cars can be subsidized.
Nuclear is a fantastic option for those annoyed by low power bills and want to see them basically double.
Is that just the actual cost of production, or does it include government subsidies and regulatory costs? Nuclear power is much, much cheaper where it is more prevalent. And in the US, wind production gets at least $28/mWh from the fed.gov.
Most of the way to Walmart?
I wonder if this data takes into consideration the non operating towers. I was driving through rural Spain this summer and passed through several huge wind farms. By quick observations about 20% of the towers were not operating. Some looked intact but not windmilling, but a surprisingly large amount were with missing and broken blades, burned heads, collapsed bases...Couldn't help but think about millions of euros just sitting there.
This.. I live in “wind mill” country, and they rarely turn. Atleast at generating speeds.
I don't have them under continuous observation, but one of our customers is just down the road from me in Iowa, in Coralville. I drove past the farms off I-80 4x this year, and often overfly them going between KLNK and KORD where I can often see them. While there are always a handful of windmills stopped, I usually saw most of them turning. There was one trip that had calm winds and nothing spinning until I was closer to Des Moines and I saw the ones on a rise turning while those that weren't on a ridge were still. When I flew to K57 (Gould Peterson, Tarkio), I saw them turning- there a farm not far west of that airport. The ones SW of KCEK (Crete, NE) seem to be turning when I fly to that airport, too.
The time that windmills are not always producing and the fact that night exists and solar doesn't produce are all part of the costs.
They must complain. Ok, follow me here, I'm applying Cap'n Jack logic to this. If they didn't complain, then there wouldn't be improvement, and the government can't accept criticism that there was no improvement, therefore, those that don't complain must be killed so that the government can't be criticized for not improving.
An increasing number of states are charging EV fees, as part of the registration process, to replace the lost gasoline taxes.
And this is always the excuse to do nothing.
Yes, but do they all make back home again?
Unfortunately in Colorado the tax on avgas keeps the airports in operation. There is no state funding for airports, it’s all avgas tax. Any improvements are Federal funds and state avgas tax. Want AWOS on all the mountains? That’s avgas tax. Want runways repaired? Avgas tax.
That's why they should raise the tax on leaded gas rather than lowering the tax on unleaded gas.
I once drove between the Newfound Gap, in the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, down into Gatlinburg on a cool Thanksgiving weekend day. Newfound gap is just over 5,000' MSL. Gatlinburg is 1,450' MSL. Distance was about 15 miles. My state-of-charge increased 5 percentage points.Yes, but do they all make back home again?
I put it in neutral and coasted down the interstate in western NC coming out of the Smokys. While I didn't gain any gasoline in the tank, I was able to hit 110mph while at idle. Can your EV hit 110 without providing any power to the drive wheels ?
That's just nuts.I put it in neutral and coasted down the interstate in western NC coming out of the Smokys. While I didn't gain any gasoline in the tank, I was able to hit 110mph while at idle. Can your EV hit 110 without providing any power to the drive wheels ?
Of course not, that's why the highways are riddled with EVs that didn't make it home with their owners remains rotting inside. Oh the humanity!Yes, but do they all make back home again?
Most of them are designed with a very low Cd in mind, and run on low rolling resistance tires.Can your EV hit 110 without providing any power to the drive wheels ?
I don't see why not. I can shift into neutral, too. What is less clear is why I'd want to.I put it in neutral and coasted down the interstate in western NC coming out of the Smokys. While I didn't gain any gasoline in the tank, I was able to hit 110mph while at idle. Can your EV hit 110 without providing any power to the drive wheels ?
France and other European countries run modern nuclear power and haven't "destroyed" any cities. France runs over 50 nuclear reactors. It can be done, and done safely especially with modern designs that make core meltdown an *almost* impossibility. This isn't Chernobyl/3-Mile island. The biggest deterrent to nuclear power is initial capital cost. You can greenfield a natural gas plant and have it producing in 3-4 years to start the return on invested capital. Nuclear takes a decade to accomplish the same thing and is multiples more expensive, so getting the necessary funding is very difficult when payback is measured in decades not years.
Sure, if you ignore the cities that have been destroyed, the rest look great!
And operating costs and disposal costs. All three matter. The french know this also...
www.lemonde.fr
www.lemonde.fr
Even Three Mile Island wasn't "Three Mile Island". Too many people confuse it with that Jane Fonda flick.
Don't forget the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant. Someone else will mention it.
Chernobyl is about the only incident that destroyed a city. Fukushima caused temporary displacement, but didn't destroy anything officially (doesn't mean it wasn't near critical after the tsunami/earthquakes). There are no other widespread nuclear power incidents that destroyed cities. It isn't cherry-picking, it's a testament to the extreme operational controls that are followed in order to keep nuclear power safe.Sure, if you ignore the cities that have been destroyed, the rest look great!
I still claim it's notable that this allegedly safe technology has destroyed cities and that the ones that haven't been destroyed were only saved by a firehose of money being sprayed at them, making it the most expensive energy currently in mass production.
And operating costs and disposal costs. All three matter. The french know this also...
'Nuclear power is one of the most expensive energies, and it makes France dependent on Russia'
OP-ED. Cost, environment, nuclear risk: Corinne Lepage, France's former environment minister, says there are several 'false truths' about nuclear power in France that should be cleared up.
France's nuclear fleet receives another blow
The extended shutdown of four reactors is fueling a surge in electricity prices, which have reached 900 euros per megawatt-hour for delivery next year, compared with less than 100 euros a year ago.
I'm not aware of any destroyed cities from it though. They evacuated a 20 or 30km radius when it first occurred, but I don't recall that being pervasive after the reactors were back under control. Probably still some fishing/agricultural restrictions in areas where they are releasing contaminated water.
