Rainbow-Translucent Graphite-Fiber K-Pop Hyper-Efficient Micro-Mini EV's --

 -- would sell well here in the US. To those who say that they wouldn't sell, I ask: who's trying?

The post title refers to EV's which currently exist only in my head, unless they're on sale somewhere else in the world, and if I saw them I'd say, Yes, that's it, exactly. There are many, many tiny inexpensive EV's which have been sold in other countries. Every report of a new one ends: "-- and they will not be available in the US." The smallest US-made EV was the Chevy Bolt, manufactured until the end of 2023. We're waiting for the next-generation Bolt, and while we wait, the next-smallest EV from GM is -- the Equinox? Ain't exactly small. 

I literally dreamed about those tiny EV's with K-Pop vibes and colorful, translucent exterior panels. In the dream, magically, I was able to make drawings of cars in my head. In real life, I must rely on the magic of words. In my head, these tiny, sleek, fun 2-passangers cars have a K-pop youthful vibe. In my dream I was pitching the design to Hyundai/Kia, and they were talking about building and selling them here in Murrka.

In the dream, some friends of mine disapproved, saying that public transportation and walking and bicycling should be promoted instead. I replied that all of those things should be promoted, and EV's too. It's a debate I've had many times in waking life. 

The dream design I was pitching to Hyundai/Kia was fun. These are tiny little hot hatches, and the see-through exterior panels, as far I know, would be a new thing. Maybe we could save the world without having any fun, but would there be a point to that?

 Shop for K-Pop videos on Amazon (caution: you may have fun!) : https://amzn.to/4isHmMC

EV Public Charging

One evening over 20 years ago, I happened to surf onto "Nightly Business Report." Not the sort of thing which ordinarily held my interest for more than a few seconds, but this time I ended up watching an entire guest commentary or editorial by a columnist from Forbes, a crusty, white bearded curmudgeon who asked, "When are one of you billionaire geniuses going to design a computer I can turn on and off like a TV?"

A darn good question! And all these years later, it still is. The commentator went on to say that computer guys made computers for computer guys, and not for the public. Computers are inconvenient and difficult to use for the general public, because computer guys don't care.

I was reminded of this just a couple of days ago, reading a social media conversation about public EV charging. Someone had started a thread because they were new at using public chargers, and having some difficulty. 

Something lots and lots of people can relate to. And thankfully, they were getting lots of advice, and hopefully, enough of it helped and they can use public chargers now.

But one participant was not helpful, was not friendly. They called the original poster stupid, and had harsh words for people who were "too lazy to learn" how to operate public chargers. 

Personal computers all over again: tech guys know how to do things like public charging, and, basically, screw you if you don't.

I know there are reasons for everything. I know tech guys got wedgies growing up and it made them angry at the whole world.

But there's a difference this time around: computers have never had to compete with any older, more familiar technology. They were new and unique, and they remain unique. EV's are competing with ICE vehicles, and public charging is competing with gas stations. 

And so, many of you may be very relieved to learn, the days when you can just go up to a public charger and swipe a credit card as if you were at a gas station -- no apps -- are already here in parts of Europe and California, which means they will be everywhere soon.

Competition between merchants, between old and new ways of doing things, leading to innovation which directly benefits the consumer. I hate to say it, but maybe Adam Smith wasn't completely wrong about everything.

Buy books about electric vehicles on Amazon:  https://amzn.to/4gPzFQw

EV Sales are Booming, Worldwide. So Why Do Many People Believe That They're Dropping?

Worldwide, 2.1 million electric vehicles were sold in 2019, 3 million in 2020, 6.76 million in 2021, 10 million in 2022, and sales in 2023 are expected to top 14 million, which will be well over 20 percent of total motor vehicles sales. Overall sales of motorized vehicles  have actually declined over the past several years.

So why are there so many stories about an alleged decline in the sales of EV's? I can only think of bad reasons, such as: people really are that bad at math. So bad that they would look at numbers as simple and clears as those I just gave you, and think it means that "the EV craze" is over. It's hard for me to believe that there are people smart enough to be able to read, but still that bad at math. But not as hard as it would have been before the 2016 Democratic US Presidential primaries.

Could it be because people think only of Teslas when they think of EV's? It seems a lot of people do. And Tesla's share of the EV market is shrinking in the US. And a lot of people, especially in the US, think only of the US when they think about how things are going in the world. 

Could it be because some bad people are flat-out lying to broad segments of the public who trust them and look to them for vital information about the world? It seems hard to avoid the conclusion that some influential bad people are doing exactly that, and trying their utmost to convince the public that "the EV craze" is over. 

I would guess that a combination of all of the above -- people's inability to do math, their tendency to do math, their tendency equate Tesla in the US with EV's globally, and lying big shots -- have led to the perception that the EV sector is doing poorly. 

This would be an example of the importance of investing in education, for instance, education in math and in critical thinking. Investments staunchly opposed by a lot of of those very same bad liars.

Nobody Killed the Electric Car!

I first saw Chris Paine's documentary Who Killed the Electric Car? over 15 years ago. I've seen it several times, watching very carefully, because I'm very much interested in electric cars. But only in the past few days has it occurred to me what a melodramatic, overstated and misleading title and outlook and approach the movie has. 

The movie has to do with the General Motors EV1, an electric car made from 1996 to 1999 in order to comply with California regulations. A total of 1,117 were made. They were leased, not sold, to customers in California. And then in 2002, when Republican took over the California legislature and rescinded the electric vehicle requirements, they were all recalled, and all but a few dozen were destroyed. Most of the remaining EV1's are now in museums. I think a few may actually be on the roads, but I'm not sure about that.

I still find GM's behavior with the EV1 to have been deplorable: refusing to sell this breakthrough electric vehicle, only leasing it, although there were customers begging to be allowed to buy them, and then taking them all back and scrapping them. I am in no way defending GM's scrapping of the EV1.

But Chris Paine's movie is, I repeat, a bit melodramatic. It consists for the most part of interviews with GM employees, some of whom worked on the EV1 project and were passionately in favor of the development of the electric vehicle, and some who seemed rather sleazy; and with some of those people to whom GM leased the EV1. 

As far as the viewer can tell by the movie, GM leased the EV1 only to movie stars. I'm guessing that GM leased some of them to people who weren't movie stars. But Paine didn't interview any of them. 

And one thing about actors is that we can get pretty dramatic at times. I say "we," although I haven't acted in a while, because I know I have the drama-queen gene. 

GM didn't kill the electric car, they discontinued the EV1 leases and recalled and scrapped the EV1's. That was not nice, and in my opinion it wasn't smart at all either, but there were still other EV's on the roads. You can see some of them in Who Killed the Electric Car? For example, the Toyota Rav4 EV. In the movie, in a melodramatically tense highway scene, one of the movie stars sees a truckload of these electric Rav4's and exclaims, OMG they're going to destroy all of THOSE too! (Nope. Toyota kept making the electric Rav4 until 2014.) 

Paine's camera shakes during that scene, as if he was getting caught up in the drama. I don't think he intentionally mislead anyone. I think he was caught up. Maybe most people who interviewed that many movie stars in that short a time would get caught up. Movie stars are very riveting, persuasive people. That's why they're stars.

But all this drama had to do with around 1,000 EV's. General Motors has sold about 200,000 Chevy Bolts. Recently, they announced they were going to discontinue the Bolt, and then they quickly reversed that decision. Maybe they've learned from the negative reaction of their handling of the EV1. Before the Bolt, they sold almost as many Volts. The electric Silverado, Sierra, Celestiq, Equinox and Blazer from GM are all already on the roads and showrooms, or coming very, very soon. The recall of the EV1 represents barely a hiccup in the overall scheme of EV production from General Motors. In his follow-up documentary, Revenge of the Electric Car, Paine represents the development of the Bolt as a change of heart for General Motors, but there's no real proof that GM wasn't committed to the most effective technology all along, and in case you didn't know it, EV's are the most technologically effective vehicles, and are rapidly pulling away from internal combustion in terms of their superior function.

And that's only GM. It's a very similar story at Ford, Hyundai/Kia, VW, Sellantis, BMW, Mercedes and almost every single other major automotive manufacturer. The transition to EV's is real, and Elon Musk didn't make it happen. He just jumped out in front of this parade and has pretended to lead it. And maybe, just possibly, he watched Who Killed the Electric Car? and saw how much fuss movie stars could stir up over a thousand EV's, and so decided to make them his first marketing niche and unwitting advertising department.

Electric Crossovers and Trucks are Coming to the US, But Smaller, Bestselling EV's Aren't Being Brought Here

If you keep up with the news about EV's, you will perceive a lot of of excitement in the US right now about electric SUV's, crossovers, trucks and big sedans. The Mustang Mach-E, which despite its name is not a Mustang, but a crossover, has been selling very well. The Hyundai Ioniq 5, another crossover, is coming soon, as are big fast sedans from Lucid, Polestar and Audi, and trucks from Rivian and Tesla and Bollinger, as well as newer versions of great big huge EV's which have already been on sale in the US for a while. And a report from some alleged geniuses says that VW "could" eventually compete with Tesla in the EV market. The VW id.4, a crossover, will go on sale in the US very soon, if it hasn't already.

In Europe, the best-selling EV right now is the VW id.3, a hatchback a bit smaller then the id.4, which hit the market last year. 2nd place: the Renault Zoe, which has been around for years and sold a huge number of units, over 250,000 and counting fast, 4th all-time among EV's after the Tesla Model 3, the Nissan Leaf and the Tesla Model S.. 

Neither the id.3 nor the Zoe is on sale in the US. 

And European reviewers are very excited about many other smallish EV's, such as the Honda E, which also are not for sale in in the US. The best-selling EV in China is the Wuling HongGuang Mini EV -- not on sale in the US.

"They" say that we Americans love SUV's, crossovers and trucks. But it's sort of hard for us to make the case that we would often prefer smaller cars when it's literally impossible for us to buy them.

 

Jeepers, why were almost 4 times as many EV's sold in Europe last year as in the US? It's a complete and stupefying mystery! The number sold in China was almost identical to Europe. Europe just barely won.

 

I'm old enough to remember the 1960's and 70's, when the US market was full of muscle cars, station wagons and huge sluggish sedans. Not very exciting machines, but the manufacturers made huge profits per vehicle. What's going on right now in the US EV market feels very familiar, unfortunately. Except that in this case it's doubly stupid, of course, because EV's are supposedly about efficiency.

The Cute EV of the Month Award goes to the Citroen Ami. This time it wasn't even close.

 

This French 2-seater is technically not even  a car, at least not according to French laws. 14-year-olds can legally drive it. The exterior is entirely made of plastic. The Ami doesn't have any of the sound insulation found in conventional automobiles, so you hear the very small electrical motor whizzing away as you drive. It doesn't seem to be able to top 30mph, except maybe downhill. Don't quote me on the downhill over-30mph, I'm not entirely sure about it. So far it's only available in France. Despite the total lack of anything even remotely resembling frills, British reviewers are going, please please please, Citroen, bring it to the UK, and Citroen is saying, Okay, maybe, we'll see, which makes the British reviewers hop around with glee.

What about in the US? Haha. Ahhhh, haaaa-hahahaaaa, haahaa, haha!  

No, as far as I know, there are no immediate plans to bring the Citroen Ami to the US.

I've got a great idea for a commercial for the Citroen Ami. "Ami" is French for "friend." In the commercial, someone is walking along the sidewalk, while an Ami rolls along silently in the street just behind him. There's no-one behind the steering wheel. He turns around and the Ami stops. He starts walking again and the Ami starts rolling along behind him again. He turns around again and looks at the Ami for a longer period of time. Then the Ami says, in a voice like ET: "Friend."

General Motors and Electric Vehicles

The first mass-produced modern electric car was the EV-1, made by General Motors beginning in 1996. Over a thousand EV-1's were leased -- not sold -- to customers primarily in California. Then in 2002 and 2003, all of the EV-1 leases were ended by GM, who collected all of the vehicles and destroyed them. 

 

Then, in 2006, GM began development of the electric Chevy Volt, which went on sale late in 2010, and from then until the present day, General Motors has been selling electric vehicles -- with less than complete enthusiasm, although so far, after the EV-1, they have not gone so far again as to destroy any of their own cars.

Last Sunday, GM ran a Super Bowl ad in which Will Ferrell hears the news that Norway bought more EV's than ICE (Internal-Combustion Engine) vehicles in 2020, and goes on a rampage, vowing that the US will outdo Norway in this. Also on Sunday, commentaries appeared saying that, although the commercial is wonderful, GM itself is a big part of the reason why currently EV's account for only about 3% of new car and truck sales in the US, compared to 54% in Norway, pointing out that GM lobbies heavily against fuel-economy regulations, which a company set on pivoting to EV's would not do. And recently, GM has announced its intention to produce only zero-emissions vehicle by 2035. 

Many people, in the light of all of this, have described GM's attitude toward EV's as schizophrenic. But "schizophrenic" implies one mind which is in conflict with itself, whereas GM consists of hundreds of thousands of employees who have routinely held sharply conflicting opinions about all sorts of things, EV's being just one example. GM is a very different company than Tesla, which is basically a cult built to do the Will of Elon. Was the EV-1 designed and built by very enthusiastic GM employees? Yes indeed. Was it at the same time viewed with horror by other GM employees, further to the Right politically, who saw it as a hippy monstrosity? Without a doubt. I also have no doubt that many at GM are very happy that their company has committed to zero emissions by 2035, and that many others believe that global warming is a hoax, perhaps Chinese in origin.

Like the rest of the world generally, GM is moving toward a more enlightened stance on the environment, while being hindered by many individuals dragging their feet, some out of conviction and others out of greed. The situation is complicated, and some parts of GM are fighting other parts.

Speaking of complication: that same Norway which is doing such a fine job of switching over to clean energy usage domestically, is also one of the world's biggest exporters of oil.

Some numbers concerning EV's

In 2020, the number of plug-in electric vehicles which have been sold worldwide passed 10 million. 2019 and 2020 alone accounted for half of that total, with over 2 million units sold in 2019 and over 3 million in 2020. While the numbers increased almost everywhere on Earth in 2020 compared to 2019, the most spectacular growth occurred in Europe, where, for the first time in many years, more EV's were sold than in China. Europe and China each saw sales of over 1.3 million units in 2020, with Europe just barely edging China out. 

But the most spectacular story in these 2020 statistics is that less than 600 thousand EV's were sold in Europe in 2019. Year-on-year, 2020 saw more than twice as many sales as 2019. Making the story even more spectacular is the fact that overall vehicle sales in Europe (including the gas- and diesel-burners) were 20% less in 2020 than in 2019.

The hottest-selling EV model in Europe right now appears to be the Volkswagen ID3. 

 

In October, the most recent month for which I can find these statistics, the ID3 edged out the previous leader, the Renault Zoe, with over 10,000 units sold. 

Two other things the ID.3 and the Zoe have in common: they both have been getting rave reviews from almost every auto reviewer who's tested them, and neither one is currently for sale in the US. A lot of us Murrkins hope the second thing changes soon.

A very common phrase in those ID3 reviews, perhaps the single most-often heard phrase, are words to the effect that "The more I drive this car, the better I like it."

 A little over 325 thousand EV's were sold in the US in 2020, and the rest of the world outside of China, Europe and the US saw sales of less than 200 thousand.

"Range Anxiety"? Range Insanity is What it Is!

Every single review of an EV talks about its range, a lot. And whether an EV can go 100 miles on a single charge, or 200, or 300, or 400, or more, the reviewer -- who is typically an EV enthusiast, not a hater! -- will almost always say that the range is not enough, that EV's need to be able to go still further between recharges before the mainstream public will dare to buy them. Don't wanna be stranded out there somewhere where they've never heard of electricity! However, almost no reviews of ICE vehicles mention how far they can go on a tank of gas or diesel. You know why? C'mon, you know why! Let's all sing it together in 5-part harmony: BECAUSE IT REALLY DOESN'T MATTER VERY MUCH! I mention that those EV reviews ALMOST always complain that the EV's range is not enough, that we need more, more, more! But it's only almost always, because now and then an unusually sensible reviewer will point out some relevant information such as that the average daily commute in the car-crazy, wide-open-spaces US is about 25 miles. 

But let's act as if this issue were really important, and do what very few do: point out how far various ICE vehicles can go on a tank of fuel. 

The coveted 2011 Bugatti Veyron 16.4 Super Sport, 

 

$2 million or so if you can find one for sale, has a big gas tank: 26.4 gallons. However, its EPA city rating is 7 miles per gallon. That comes out to 184.8 miles. If an EV were released in 2020 costing $100,000 or more which got less than 200 miles on a charge, there would be widespread rioting. Fortunately they all get well over 200 miles, some more than twice that. Keep in mind, 7 miles per gallon is the EPA rating for the Veyron. The EPA rating entails fairly sedate driving habits. If you really opened it up, the Veyron would presumably get a lot less than 7 miles per gallon. A Car & Driver review of the Veyron said that if you drove it at its 264 mph top speed continuously, its tires, over $40,000 for a set of 4, would be used up in about 15 minutes, or 65 miles, but that was okay, because it would use a full, 26.4 gallon tank of gas in about 10 minutes, or 45 miles, but that too was okay because there's no place on Earth where you could safely drive at 264 mph for that long. 26.4 gallons in 45 miles is about 1.7 mph. If you drive a Veyron very sedately, that $40,000 set of tires might last as long as 1000 miles. I was bent double with laughter for a while at the thought of someone buying a Veyron and then driving it sedately. You might as well just keep it in plastic shrink wrap like a collectible toy, which is pretty much what it is. By the way, when you change the tires you have to change the wheels too, and that's another $60,000 or more.

When a 1970 Dodge Challenger was new, there were no EPA mileage tests. Owners report about 8 miles to the gallon for one of those gems in peak tune. The car has an 18 gallon gas tank. That works out to 144 miles. And of course, if you let a ICE car go a little, it'll get worse mileage than when it's running perfectly. Is the 1970 Dodge Challenger being constantly abused for its lack of driving range? Are its owners warned never to dare trying to drive one from LA to Vegas? Not to my knowledge.

The 1967 Chevrolet Camaro also has an 18 gallon gas tank. At its official 5.4 miles per gallon, it has a range of under 100 miles -- and less if you floor it, of course. Just as with the Bugatti, just as with all ICE vehicles and all EV's, you get less than the standard range if you drive 'em hard.

EV Headlines

Tesla stock is selling for over $500 a share, and the market cap of the company is over half a trillion dollars, which is more than the combined value of the rest of the North American automotive market sector. That is: more than the combined market cap of GM, Ford and Chrysler, plus all of their North American parts suppliers, plus all North American auto-parts stores and auto-repair businesses.

Many Tesla fans seem convinced, not only that Tesla makes better cars than anyone else on the planet, but also that no other manufacturer will ever catch up with them, and that Tesla will eventually, literally speaking, take over the entire world. If you believe that, then maybe Tesla's current valuation could be justified in your eyes. To everybody else, this looks like a bubble, and the only questions are when it will pop, how bad it will be, and how many of you fans will still think that Elon Musk is Jesus after you're living in your Teslas because you had to sell your houses after Tesla stock was wiped out, and then living on the sidewalk because you had to sell your Teslas. I know, I know: many of you will still think he's Jesus. Even if he sells all his Tesla stock before it crashes and is 4 times richer than Jeff Bezos. I know absolutely incurable madness when I see it.

An automotive stock whose market capitalization is currently slightly higher than GM's is NIO. This may surprise you if you've never heard of NIO, and if you're not heavy into EV's, you probably haven't. They are a Chinese company with some impressive models coming soon to the US market. So, how many vehicles have they sold worldwide since their start up in 2014? Just over 50,000. How many vehicles has GM sold in the same time? Over 20 million. Just in the US and Canada. So is NIO another bubble? Aehhmm...

Maybe GM is drastically undervalued. Maybe none of this, literally speaking, makes any sense at all. 

NIO and another Chinese Company, XPeng, will be bringing high-performance cars to the US market soon. Automotive journalists have test driven NIO's and XPeng's products and described them as serious competition for Tesla. 

But the car currently regarded as the most serious competition for Tesla is the Lucid Air, coming soon from the American start-up Lucid Motors. I don't have range anxiety, but I know that many of you do, so for your sake I'll just mention that the Lucid Air goes over 500 miles on a single charge.

And that 500-mile range excites a lot of people. Bores the Hell out of me. But the following excites me. In another market sector, the affordable electric car, yet another Chinese company, Kandi, is making big news in the US: their model K27 

may actually beat NIO and XPeng and Lucid into US showrooms. To be frank, some of the cheapest electric cars for sale so far have been golf carts which somehow have received street-legal status. Kandi's entry-level K27 is no golf cart. Some reviewers have described it as roomier, peppier and just all-around better than a Smart Electric. And Kandi has K27's in Texas right now and is working on getting them homologated and setting up a dealer network. Looks like like they might miss their stated intention to have cars for sale in the US by the end of this year. But even if so, they won't miss it by much.

And the K27 is rather affordable. I'm not clear exactly what the sticker price will be. It was going to be $20,000, but if a recent report it's accurate, Kandi have changed their minds, and lowered it to $17,500. If that's accurate, it might be a smart move on Kandi's part, because $17,500 minus the federal $7500 EV rebate equals exactly $10,000, and then any state or local rebates which bring the K27 down into four figures, so much for for-real new EV's not being affordable. For example, it would cost $6000 in Colorado, and as low as $3000 in California. For a legit -- although very small -- brand new EV which has all the features you'd expect on a new car. I'm picturing a lot of suburban Daddy's girls in families which never considered EV's before this, getting brand-new Kandis for their 16th birthdays. Could be big. Could be big business. Watch this space.

Oh, btw, just for extra oomph: if the K27 does go on sale for $17,500, that would be exactly half of the $35,000 sticker price which Tesla promised for the Model 3, but never delivered on. I know, a lot of Tesla zombies will insist that Tesla did so offer a $35,000 Model 3, but just keep in mind, they also believe that they, as Tesla stockholders, will soon rule the world. And that Elon Musk makes about $20,000 a year working for Tesla. They believe a lot of very silly things.

EV's and Politics

Some of the most prominent EV vloggers on YouTube say repeatedly that they want to avoid political statements, that their videos about EV's are unpolitical. One, who calls himself Electric Vehicle Man, which is also the name of his excellent YouTube channel, which has lots of EV road tests and lots of debunking of negative misconceptions about EV's, also says that he is sometimes accused of being an eco warrior, an accusation which he says is inaccurate.

 

Eco warrior? I was unfamiliar with the term before hearing Electric Vehicle Man repeatedly insist that he is not one. I googled what is an eco warrior, and the first definition I saw was "a person actively involved in preventing damage to the environment." Which Electric Vehicle Man certainly is. In fact, when he says I'm not an eco warrior, he usually goes on to say, Yes, I promote electric vehicles, and I choose electricity from my utility which comes from wind and solar, and I do other things to help the environment. So apparently different people define the term differently. Maybe Electric Vehicle Man thinks that you need to actually chain yourself to a tree, or live in a tree for a month or longer, or be very strictly vegan, or even all three, or even more, in order to be accurately called an eco warrior. Maybe he has already precisely defined what he understands the term to mean and why it doesn't apply to him in his opinion. One of the good things about his You Tube channel is the large amount of precise and detailed information he provides.

Electric Vehicle Man and I definitely define the term "politics" differently. As I said, many people who make a living -- or in some cases just a supplementary second income -- promoting electric vehicles on You Tube insist that their advocacy of EV's has nothing to do with politics. How can they say that? They're constantly mentioning how the prices of EV's include government rebates worth thousands of dollars or Euros or British pounds per vehicle, rebates which are much larger in certain places than others. And they know that politicians determine the size of those rebates, and that different political parties want the rebates to get get bigger or smaller. They constantly report on factories being built which will manufacture EV's, and the involvement of governments in making the construction of these factories easier or more difficult.

Electric Vehicle Man frequently mentions that using public transportation is even better for the environment than driving an EV, and that where he lives, in his part of Yorkshire in the UK, there is very little public transportation, and also very little public charging infrastructure for EV's. Oh, and he also mentioned, when he drove an EV up through Scotland for his video channel, that Scotland not only has a lot of public EV charging infrastructure, but also THAT EV CHARGING IS FREE FOR EVERYONE IN SCOTLAND. (Which is almost 100% true: sometimes there's a small parking fee for those Scottish chargers, sometimes not. Other than that -- FREE!!!)

I tend to think that everything is political. But leaving aside this opinion of mine for the moment, it seems particularly obvious to me that the poor state of public transportation in Yorkshire, about which Electric Vehicle Man complains, is a political issue. They even put the word "public" in public transportation to make it even easier to see how it's political. Does Electric Vehicle Man really not understand that if he and his neighbors there in his part of Yorkshire became more involved in political parties and were more active in promoting and criticizing the agendas of political parties, one benefit of that is that they might get much better public transportation? Among many, many other very good things?

Does Electric Vehicle Man really not grasp that? Really? REALLY???

Some say that if you don't at least vote, you have no right to complain about anything the state does. I wouldn't go quite that far, but I do think it's self-contradictory to complain about government while not doing a thing to participate in it. And strange and quite sad.

By the way, I also think it's rather cheesy of Electric Vehicle Man to call himself Electric Vehicle Man while he not only currently owns an ICE vehicle in addition to an EV, but also intends to buy other ICE vehicles in the future. (Perhaps in large part because of the public transportation situation in his area about which he's always complaining, without seeming to DO much about it?) I think he's doing a lot of good by promoting EV's, but I think there are others who deserve that superhero title a lot more than he does, because they're a lot more committed to the cause. For example, the guy who hosts the YouTube vlog News Coulomb. It seems very clear to me that no-one is perfect, but calling yourself Electric Vehicle Man does definitely imply a level of purity. Calling yourself that and not only owning ICE vehicles, but intending to own more ICE vehicles in the future, is misleading at the very best.

Perhaps complaining about such things makes me an eco warrior in Electric Vehicle Man's eyes. And maybe that means that I and everyone like me is completely unbearable to him. Or perhaps it just means that a few things I do annoy him somewhat, without him thinking I'm a horrible person in general. Which would make the two of us about even.

Bashing EV's, and Ecological Action in General

Some say that EV's are bad for the environment, because some pollution is involved in making them. I disagree, because I think you've got to measure their effect by comparing it to the effect of ICE vehicles. Yes, not owning a car at all would be even better. 

 

But saying that EV's are bad for the environment, imho, is like saying that rooftop solar panels are bad for the environment because it would be even better if humans just went extinct. Which some environmentalists actually want. See for example Jeff Gibbs and his recent, disgusting documentary Planet of the Humans, which basically takes a big long piss on everybody who's trying to combat climate change and pollution for not doing a 100% perfect job of it. News flash: nothing is 100% perfect, not everyone who's trying to help is a fool or a dupe, and it is possible that humans will reverse the damage we've done to the environment. People don't deserve to be castigated for trying to help. Jeff Gibbs is a huge jerk and a pathological misanthropist. He's not trying to help.

Improvement is improvement. Some ICE vehicles are, in fact, much cleaner than others. A hybrid is better for the environment than an ICE vehicle. An EV is better than a hybrid. Walking, riding a non-electric bicycle or taking public transportation is better than driving an EV. 

Misinformation or disinformation (deliberate misinformation) is bad. It tends to encourage people to think that their actions make no difference, and that they might as well just give up, keep polluting as much as anybody does, and get ready to die, because the whole planet is going to die soon and there's nothing we can do about it. Which is completely inaccurate, there are all sports of things we can do about it and are doing about it. We need to keep on doing those things, and doing more. For example, the charge that EV batteries are going to end up causing horrible pollution in landfills, besides coming from people who never before in their lives expressed any concern about pollution or landfills, also happens to be dead wrong: those batteries, after lasting much longer in EV's than anyone expected, will be used in other ways, such as storing energy in people's homes or for utilities, and when they finally do expire, they will be recycled. No part of them will go into landfills. So if you've been telling people that EV batteries will soon be choking landfills and killing us all, please stop, and inform yourself on the topic. Thank you very much.

Of course, the belief that global warming is a hoax and that burning coal doesn't harm living things and that windmills are causing birds to go extinct, and so forth, that form of misinformation and disinformation is bad, too, but, thank goodness, it's finally dying out. Which shows us that other forms can be overcome as well.

The charge that driving EV's causes people to stop worrying about other causes of climate crisis such as overconsumption and overpopulation, seems to be untrue as well. On the contrary, while a few EV owners may be unconscientious, massively-polluting pigs who own six huge EV's which are all powered by coal-generated electricity and never carpool, most tend to support climate science and renewable energy (including putting solar panels on their own roofs in a high percentage of cases), and to be better than average at reducing consumption of plastic, to be vegan more often than non-EV drivers, and in general: it's crap, the charge that driving an EV makes a person think they've done all they ever need to do for the environment, and they're done.

Thank goodness, more and more people already know all of the things I've said in this post, and it's getting harder and harder to attack EV's, or solar or wind energy, or climate science, or engaged, woke people in general, without looking like a complete fool.

Electrical Power to the People!

There are probably 400,000,000,000,000,000,000 idiots -- approximately, give or take -- raving full-time about how EV's don't have enough range. They're wrong. I could fill whole posts with the details of the ways in which they are wrong, but if we could somehow distract them from this topic, and get them raving full-time about how there need to be more charging options instead, that could really do some good.

I'm not just talking about fast-charge options -- the public places where you pull up in your EV and plug it in and then pay when you're done, like a gas station except with electricity instead of gas. This is cheaper than putting gas into a conventional car, but it's not as cheap as plugging an EV into a regular wall socket overnight. I'm also talking about houses with garages. A lot of people who own EV's seldom or never use those public charging stations, because they plug their cars into regular sockets

 

overnight. This takes longer than the public charging stations, but it's also much cheaper. 

So people who own their own houses save money by plugging their EV's in overnight, while poor people who can't afford the price of a new EV to begin with also tend not to own their own houses, and usually don't have any wall sockets which they can easily plug their used EV's into overnight. Maybe they could get a 100-foot extension cord and run it from their 2012 Nissan Leaf parked on the street up the side of their apartment building, in the window of their 3rd-floor apartment and into the wall socket and charge their electric cars while they sleep the way that rich people do. Maybe. But it would be difficult, and the problems would be much greater still if they lived on the 10th floor. 

Similarly, many employers offer free EV charging to their employees, but we're usually talking about employees who are already well-paid. Similarly, Tesla offers free public charging to many Tesla owners -- but again, Teslas are even more expensive than other EV's. And that's just one of the problems with owning a Tesla. 

And electricity is much more widely available in the US and Europe than in some poorer regions of the world.

You see the pattern here. It's easy for you to get those famous huge energy savings by owning an EV -- but in most cases, you can only get the FULL savings if you're rich enough not to really need those savings. It's the infamous Tom Petty It's Ab-So-Lute-Lute-Ly Backwards Law of Microeconomics again. Poorer people will still save money buying electricity for their cars instead of gasoline, but generally not as much money. Let's get those 400,000,000,000,000,000,000 idiots raving about giving poor people their own houses with garages with wall outlets in them -- they could talk to Jimmy Carter and some of his associates about that one -- or giving them very cheap or free electricity some other way. Then, those 400,000,000,000,000,000,000 idiots would actually be accomplishing something.

Innovation in EV and Renewable-Energy Technology

For you Republicans: "EV" means "electric vehicle." Those things which you believe are well-meant, but don't work, whose sales are booming worldwide, because they work really well and are rapidly improving. The way that you believe that solar and wind energy are well-meant, but that the time when they will provide electricity more cheaply than coal or natural gas or oil is some time off. And, in a way, you're right about that: that time is some time off and keep getting further away, because it is years ago. That's right: wind and solar have been cheaper than coal and gas for years, and they keep getting cheaper, and coal and gas and oil don't. That's the reason why more and more wind and solar power plants keep being made, and why more and more rooftops have solar panels on them: not because of widespread insanity, as you may have been told, but because it's a better deal. Financially. Even before you start to calculate the value of being able to continue to breathe.

To be fair, some of you Republicans are already with me, but to be real, an awful lot of you are still buying (or selling) a line of BS from big polluters.

Utilities are also not necessarily everybody's friends. They themselves are building big solar and wind plants, and in some cases are even eager to build solar generating systems on people's roofs which they, the utilities, own, not the owner of the building, all because they would rather make the profits of generating electricity by solar panels than see you make those profits by generating a lot of electricity on your roof and selling what you don't use to the grid. In the past four years they have done a very good job of taking those profits out of other people's hands.

On the other hand, off-grid solar and wind are growing fast: people who've decided they don't need the power utilities at all. The word "utility" means the quality of being of some use to someone. When electric power utilities take worse and worse advantage of their customers, they undermine their very reason for existing. A strategy which may seem unsustainable in the long term.

Those of you who are technologically-literate, regardless of political affiliation, know that the biggest current problem with EV's is batteries. And you know that also when it comes to EV batteries, there is an awful lot of disinformation out there. The importance of range, of how far an EV can go without recharging, is exaggerated. The abundance of charging options is hidden from public knowledge as much as possible. And the rate at which EV batteries degrade, lose their power, turns out to be not as great as even EV enthusiasts feared, let alone the stories that circulate in the right wing. 2004 Nissan Leafs are being sold second-hand, why, because they're a great deal, and their batteries, their original batteries, still work pretty well. 

Still, EV batteries are a problem because they're very heavy, and because they take a while to recharge. (Not as long as you might think if you get your news from right-wing sources, but...)

So it occurred to me a while ago that EV's could be recharged from satellites. That's right: besides radio and TV and Internet signals, you can also send electrical charges wirelessly over great distances. The wireless recharging technology is not very advanced right now, or it would be widely used right now, but eventually, unless some other technology I'm not thinking of beats it to the punch, the current aggravation with EV batteries will be overcome, not just by better batteries, but by satellite recharging. This means that EV's will have to carry much smaller battery packs, which in turn means that they will be much lighter, which means that they will be even peppier and more efficient than they currently are.

So that occurred to me a while ago, and I conferred with my brother, who is a mechanical engineer, and he confirmed that this has already occurred to other people and they're working on it. 

But then yesterday, while my mind was up there in space with those satellites, it also occurred to me that electricity can be generated in space -- space, where overcast skies are less of a problem than the problems which Republicans tirelessly exaggerate in their attempts to convince people that solar power will never work.

And of course, solar power has been used in outer space for a long, long time. How long? Since 1958. 

When googling this subject, I came across things which I don't yet understand at all. But people have been working on large-scale solar power generation in space since the 1970's. 

So, to summarize, renewable energy has already been a better deal than coal, gas and oil for some time, and it will continue to improve much more quickly than fossil-fuel technology. How great the benefits will be which the public reaps from the change to wind and solar, and how fast the change will happen, depends on education: education of scientists, technicians, engineers and mathematicians, but also the education of the public in general about the political and economic forces which are slowing the transition for the sake of the short-term financial interests of a few people, at the cost of everyone's health.

An Open Letter to Time + Tide, the Australian Horological Publication

You've got a current headline which reads:

RECOMMENDED READING: Apple sold nearly 10 million more watches than the entire Swiss watch industry in 2019

Well, good luck with the Apple watch crowd. Because all of these recent articles about quartz watches and smart watches are losing us who like mechanical watches and used to like Time & Tide. We had 45 years to start liking quartz watches before the Apple Watch was invented -- didn't happen, did it? And yes, we do know that quartz watches are much more accurate and that smart watches do all sorts of amazing things. We just don't particularly care.

It also will do you no good with me to compare smart watches to electric cars, because I'm already completely on board with EV's. That's right: electric cars and mechanical watches for me, please. And solar and wind power and the death of the oil, coal and gas industry just as soon as possible!

And I'd dump mechanical watches too if they spewed poisonous gases the way internal-combustion vehicles do -- but they don't, do they?

I know, the Apple watch geeks will stare at us mechanical-watch geeks as if we were pods, as if we were simply inexplicable beings. News flash: most people already looked at us that way, and we already knew it, and we already didn't care. To us, the others were always the pods, and right now, anybody who tries to talk us into Apple watches over mechanical watches -- is of course a pod. There's not even the slightest question about it. And there's also not even the slightest question that some of the people who work at your magazine are one of us and not one of you, and they'll quit, and they and we will be just fine. In fact we'll be better because we'll be just a little bit more convinced of each other's genuineness once pods like you have been weeded out.

We had of course assumed that you, Time & Tide, were one of us, but we'll live. We'll live wearing mechanical watches, and sometimes even carrying mechanical pocket watches, and not being the slightest bit tired of having to pull them out of our pockets every time we want to know the imperfectly, mechanically-kept time.

We'll be just fine. Mechanical watches won't disappear. Quartz didn't make them disappear, smart watches and sleazy sell-outs like you, Time + Tide, won't make them disappear. Mechanical watches are already not about maximum profits any more than they're about the absolutely best-available precision time. Rats jumping ship will just make the love and dedication of those who remain shine more clearly. You're just pushing mechanicals further in the direction of art. Art hasn't disappeared.

Gas Stations and Charging Stations

According to statista.com, as of December 2018 there were 20,021 public electric vehicle charging stations in the US, with a total of 57,187 charging outlets. That was over a year ago. I don't know what the current figures are, but I know they're much higher, because the news I follow is always full of headlines about new charging stations opening.

So that got me thinking about how many gas stations there must be in the US. I figured there had to be a million of them, but all the figures I see say that there are barely 100,000, and that the number is dropping.

What I haven't found anywhere is any total number of gas pumps in the US. If Mom and Pop gas stations with 4 pumps each are being put out of business by convenience stores with 16 pumps each, then the actual number of gas pumps could be rising while the number of gas stations drops. If the average is something like 8 pumps per gas station, that would make a total of roughly 1 million gas pumps in the US, and with over 250 million gas-burning vehicles, that makes over 250 vehicles per pump.

Let's compare this to the ratio of electric vehicles per public charging outlets. The US had 57,187 public charging outlets at the end of 2018. 250 electric vehicles per each one of those outlets would've made a total of 14,296,750. Were there 14 million EV's on the US roads in December 2018? Would've been nice, but no, the number was more like 1.2 million. Which means that there were less than 21 electric vehicles per charging station.

The whole point of this post has to do with something which afficianados of electric vehicles refer to as "range anxiety" -- the worry that you can't drive around very far or very freely in an electric vehicle because of the danger that you'll run out of electricity and be stranded and nothing can be done and oh my God it'll be so horrible. As people who know about EV's are constantly attemptinbg to point out to anyone who'll listen, range anxiety, like many other kinds of anxiety, is completely irrational. Yes, it's possible to run out of electricity in an electric vehicle, but it's also possible to run out of gas in an internal-combustion, and you'd have to be pretty careless to do either one.

And, actually, electric vehicles have a huge advantage over gasoline-burning vehicles in this regard. Most of us can't get gasoline anywhere in the US except at one of those 100,000 or so public gas stations. But there are a lot of ways to get electricity into an EV, including hooking them up to outlets which look like this:

There are a lot more than 57,000 of those outlets in the US, there are a lot more than a million of them, and every single electric vehicle can plug into every one of them. A lot of electric vehicles never or rarely have to visit public charging stations, because their owners just plug them in overnight every night, significantly lowering the average number of EV's which actually rely on that swiftly-increasing number of public charging stations. Becoming actually completely stranded in an EV in the US, with no access to electricity, would, I sincerely believe, be a lot harder than being stranded because your gas-burning car ran out of gas. To be completely stranded in an electric vehicle, you'd have to really work hard at it, and be exceptionally careless, and be way out in the boonies at the same time.

So, enough with range anxiety! Enough with worrying that you can't drive where you need to go in an electric vehicle! You can! If anything, there's quite an overkill in the charging infrastructure! That's the actual facts! Learn the facts, get an EV, or even better, take the electric train! That'd be even better for the environment. What electric train? Well, yeah, for that, you have to be in certain parts of the US, or in Europe or Japan or vast areas of the rest of the Earth. That's a good subject for another blog post. But for now, even in Murrka, there's just no rational reason to be afraid to drive an EV. Only irrational reasons.

Peak Oil and Peak Oil Demand

The term "peak oil" has been used since the 1950's to refer to the time in the future when mankind will begin to run out of petroleum. The "peak" refers to the point where maximum production of oil no longer keeps pace with worldwide demand. Since the 1950's some economists and oil-industry analysts, sometimes regarded as chronic pessimists by their colleagues, have been warning about this time when the world will begin to run out of oil, foreseeing massive worldwide economic collapse in a world which needs oil to live. People like Bob Lutz had phrases like "$60 a gallon for gasoline" and "fighting in the streets over scraps of meat" on their lips. When Lutz spearheaded the project to make the Chevrolet Volt, the first electric vehicle ever willingly manufactured by General Motors, he didn't believe global warming was real. I don't know what he thinks about it now. He's not a complete moron, by no means. He's just spent his entire long life in a very conservative culture.

More recently, however, another term has begun to be used: "peak oil demand." This refers to the time in the future when worldwide demand for oil will begin to decrease. When it came to peak oil, there was always great disagreement among experts. It's hard to tell how much of the world's oil can be practically mined. There are factors such as future improvement in oil-extraction technology. There is now much more of a consensus about peak oil demand: the great majority of those who specialize in such things predict that somewhere between the 2020's and the 2040's, demand will begin to decrease. There are a few who say that peak oil demand will NEVER occur. These people are either lying, to prop up oil futures or for some other reasons, or they are awfully optimistic, if they really believe that the global demand for and consumption of oil will rise FOREVER. I think such optimism would just about have to include the belief that climate change is a Chinese hoax.

I think we can disregard the peak-oil-demand-will-never-happen crowd as a crazy fringe, although their numbers may be large enough to be a problem, like the numbers of climate-change deniers.

The richest people in the world may lie now and then about what they believe, but their beliefs tend to be pretty practical. When they discuss peak oil demand in the financial media, they routinely mention factors such as changing technology. Trains and ships have been converting to electric-hybrid engines for some time, and are on their way to all-electric. Why? Because the people who own and operate trains and ships don't like to waste money. And of course, many trains have already been all-electric for a very long time. Amurrkins, note the wires just above the trains:

Electric cars will replace ones that burn gasoline or diesel, the only question is, how quickly. Solar and wind are already rapidly replacing coal, oil and gas for the purpose of generating electricity, why? Same as the answer about the trains and ships: because solar and wind are cheaper, and their cost savings over coal, oil and gas keep getting bigger.

Strangely, though, when experts get together in places like CNBC to discuss when peak oil demand will occur, there are certain very relevant things which they tend not to mention. Things like climate change, wetlands, lung cancer, wildfires, biodiversity and catastrophic storms.

Maybe they're only half-smart.