One in Five Electric Car Owners in California Switched Back to Gas-Powered
Meanwhile, governors of California and 11 other states urge Biden to back phasing out gas-powered vehicle sales by 2035.
Legal Insurrection readers may recall that California Governor Gavin Newsom signed an executive order banning the sale of new gasoline and diesel-powered vehicles by 2035.
As with his dining habits, Newsom’s inclination to virtue signal may prove toxic to his continued political career. Unfortunately for him, it seems that the realities of “green energy” are not living up to the promises made by green justice advocates.
In a study published in the journal Nature Energy by the University of California Davis, researchers Scott Hardman and Gil Tal surveyed Californians who purchased an electric vehicle between 2012 and 2018 and found roughly one in five switched back to owning gas-powered cars.
Most indicated they found charging the batteries was a pain. Business Insider published a story on the study that said of those who switched to gas, more than 70 percent lacked access to Level 2 charging at home, and slightly fewer lacked Level 2 connections at their workplace.
While ready access to the proper type of charging station was important, other economic factors also played a role.
…Those who gave up on their EVs lived in smaller households so they had fewer vehicles. They were also younger, had smaller earnings, rented more, were less likely to live in a single-family standalone house, and were less likely to be male.
What were their reasons? Charging was the biggest thorn. Specifically, the lack of a 240-Volt power outlet at home. “We know that home charging is most influential charging location in the decision to buy an EV,” says Hardman. “It is the most frequently used, the cheapest, the most convenient, and increases odds of continuing PEV ownership.”
While many in single-family homes can easily get home-chargers, for lower income households a home charger can be unaffordable, and those who live in apartments and condos may not be able to install a charger where they park, he says. “Maybe we need to think more about getting home charging access for as many households as possible.”
This video by The Fast Lane Car explores some of the challenges associated with car charging.
There is an additional consideration about just how green electric vehicles are, which officials are starting to assess. In about ten years, the lithium batteries powering those cars will start failing. As a result, those in charge will soon need to address the disposal of these units containing a substantial amount of hazardous materials that are potentially reactive:
“In 10 to 15 years when there are large numbers coming to the end of their life, it’s going to be very important that we have a recycling industry,” he points out.
While most EV components are much the same as those of conventional cars, the big difference is the battery. While traditional lead-acid batteries are widely recycled, the same can’t be said for the lithium-ion versions used in electric cars.
EV batteries are larger and heavier than those in regular cars and are made up of several hundred individual lithium-ion cells, all of which need dismantling. They contain hazardous materials, and have an inconvenient tendency to explode if disassembled incorrectly.
“Currently, globally, it’s very hard to get detailed figures for what percentage of lithium-ion batteries are recycled, but the value everyone quotes is about 5%,” says Dr Anderson. “In some parts of the world it’s considerably less.”
Of course, Newsom is trying to export this energy insanity throughout the country, perhaps to prevent even more citizens from fleeing to more liberty-embracing states. He has joined the governors of 11 other states pressuring Biden to issue a presidential executive order banning new, gasoline-fueled cars by 2035.
The governors of a dozen U.S. states including California, New York, Massachusetts and North Carolina called on President Joe Biden on Wednesday to back ending sales of new gasoline-powered vehicles by 2035, a dramatic shift away from fossil fuels.
Biden’s $2.3 trillion infrastructure plan calls for $174 billion in spending and tax credits to boost electric vehicles (EVs) and charging networks but does not call for phasing out gasoline-powered passenger vehicles.
In a letter that was seen by Reuters, the governors, which also include those of Connecticut, Hawaii, Maine, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Washington State and Rhode Island, urged Biden to set standards “to ensure that all new passenger cars and light-duty trucks sold are zero-emission no later than 2035 with significant milestones along the way to monitor progress.”
They argued that “by establishing a clear regulatory path to ensuring that all vehicles sold in the United States are zero-emission, we can finally clear the air and create high-road jobs.”
Hopefully, the rest of the nation won’t have to go through this executive inanity.
I suspect that we can add the practical problems surrounding this executive order to the list of significant issues that can and will be highlighted by Newsom’s recall challengers.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
The only thing that surprises me is that it’s such a small percentage. How many of the remaining 80% have multiple cars and the others are gas?
I can’t imagine owning a full-electric car. But, I’ve owned a PHEV SUV for three months now and absolutely love it. It only has 4o-miles of all-electric range before the ICE kicks in. I use the SUV as a daily-driver and that’s been more than enough. I have not put gas in the vehicle since the first week in March and I’m averaging almost 250-miles a week.
Electric cars are essentially batteries with wheels. When the battery-life expires, the car is worthless. It’s not like owning a 1967 Mustang kept in cherry condition. There is no reason to hold onto it. In the end, the wheels serve to accommodate the towing service when they take your wheeled-battery to the toxic waste dump.
What efficiency they lose in the electrochemical transport, they make up with simplified mechanical design. The long charge times are a step too far. Also, the climate (e.g. temperature) matters. A green environment does not. As for Green, don’t be green, out-of-sight and out-of-mind.
There is absolutely nothing in the world like a 67 Mustang in cherry condition……oh-wow!!!
And the elephant in the room is that there is no possibility of a 0 emission electrical grid to power them…. unless you go nuclear.
If you really see Climate Change as an existential threat, you should be demonstrating day and night in support of Nuclear Power.
Of course California classifies Nuclear with coal and oil and plans to shut down their 1 remaining nuclear power plant.
And it’s going to get worse especially for the west coast.
Musk is very good at certain things, but explain to me how he thinks “batteries for storage” solve the wind and solar energy deficits. Wind and solar are currently putting everything they have back into the grid and it’s peanuts….even at max wind/solar capability it’s like single digit percentages of CURRENT energy demands. When demands double, how are wind and solar even close to an answer? They aren’t!
Why are these practical dilemmas summarily ignored by the supposedly enlightened leftists?
To be fair, we shouldn’t abort the baby with social progress. Intermittent/renewables are a niche solution.
I’m not saying we should get rid of them; they can still contribute. However, that’s a wholly different topic than placing faith that the renewables output will magically rise to the occasion.
You should when it isn’t actually progress. Windmills and passenger trains are not a solution to anything.
I started my engineering career in medical, then a variety of disciplines related to automation.
In both cases reliability and redundancy were crucial. Distributed control was a big part of that.
Society would benefit greatly from distributed power production. That includes solar, wind and hydro. It could also include a new generation of micro nuclear plants. New plant designs are far safer than current nuclear plants.
Another aspect of this is breaking the back of existing power monopolies.
Those of us who take control of our own power needs will benefit by avoiding taxes. Savings over time are considerable.
Our family is far more self sufficient than most, power is an important part of that
If there was ever anything that benefits from scale economies, it’s power generation. Take your Maoist fantasies to CNN.
With current technology of power generation, you’re absolutely correct.
With a little foresight and engineering with technology available since the 1960’s (Thorium MSR), we could have neighborhood nuclear generators the size of one or two chest freezers. When the useful lifetime of the generator is up, a truck comes. replaces it, and carts it off for reprocessing.
Crank, I am a die hard capitalist. In business it is often good to vertically intergrate. The same is true on a personal level.
First, we all recognize that any Executive Order signed by a president can be modifed or revoked by any future occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. At least when he’s not being undercut by SCOTUS.
Second, what Constitutional or statutory authority does any president have to ban the manufacture or sale of an otherwise lawful product? If such authority existed, why hasn’t any previous president used that authority to outright ban tobacco products? (Please don’t say campaign contributions or politics. You know someone would have tried it if they thought they could get away with it.)
That’s the way it used to work. But, you’ll remember that even though Obama enacted the “Dreamers’ program by Executive Order, the Supreme Court refused to allow Trump to end the Dreamers program by using a superseding Executive Order…because reasons, said the Supreme Court.
So, irrespective of how EOs were seen, jurisprudentially, for the first 240-years, they’re now seen differently, apparently. Believing a subsequent president could change what Biden enacts by EO is a tenuous belief, at best.
As I said:
“At least when he’s not being undercut by SCOTUS.”
“At least when he’s not being undercut by SCOTUS”
Or some irrelevant a*e in Hawaii.
With all the plugin hybrids entering the market, it’s surprising we don’t see more about them in the automotive press. Top up the charge when parked and let the ICE power the vehicle in between charges and on long trips. Like TargaGTS, commuters might go all week on the battery only. It’s so simple, I wonder if I’m missing something.
Hybrids are good but the maintenance cost is a lot higher. They have a lot more complexity by virtue of trying to do both. This pushes up the cost.
Full electric has benefits but it’s still a maturing technology and still needs better infrastructure.
Regardless, the battery issues, cost, short life, and recycling make the idea of electric-only, insane.
There is a study out of Norway where 85% + of the electricity is produced from hydro so they don’t have the generation problem. Norway also has generous subsidies and tax treatment for purchase of electric vehicles. Internal combustion engine vehicles are not only unsubsidized but subjected to additional tax at purchase.
The study shows that most of the electric vehicles were used as secondary not primary transport. The owners were reluctant to travel any distance for fear of not trusting the battery charge.
If I could remember where I saw this I would post a link. I read an article quoting this in the last week. Maybe someone else has a link they could share?
IMO, a hybrid makes some sense but totally electric? No. Not until a costly build out of charging stations. A rapid charge process that equals the five minutes or less at a gas pump. Of course this ignores the battery disposal issue.
Perhaps the next Congress under r majority could require that States who mandate EV purchase are required to have a valid and operational plan to recycle and store used batteries within their State? This whole outsourcing of unpleasant costs isn’t tenable. Don’t ship CA used up hazardous batteries out of state. CA and other States wishing to create a mandate should internalize the costs.
How about not forcing people to buy crap because of religious beliefs? Let the electric cars become competitive without subsidies and people will choose to buy them.
Ok. Fine by me. I don’t think mandated use of EV is a good idea. I simply believe that if the legislature enacts and the governor signs it then that State should internalize the costs.
If the voters of CA refuse to overturn an EV mandate then they should keep the batteries and the environmental problems that come with them. Don’t send them off to landfill in another State. Deal with the issue in CA.
You want fast recharging? We have an example of that already: Formula 1 hybrids. It destroys the batteries, they are replaced after every race.
The fueling time is just one of several factors that limit the viability of EV. Until the the obstacles I mentioned and very likely others are solved they EV is not comparable to internal combustion engine.
Those solutions aren’t cheap. When factored in to the price the EV are simply not competitive.
IMO hybrid makes some sense as a primary transport. I don’t own one and do not support any measures to mandate them or EV.
If someone wants to buy an EV that’s n their choice. The battery disposal issue needs to be solved and costs internalized by the supporter of the EV.
Especially when a State creates a mandate. Those batteries are a pain to deal with. They should not be able to ship the problem put of State.
Hydro is the gold standard in renewable power. Output can be adjusted to meet demand, day or night, any season.
Battery technology is improving, both higher power density and form factor. Prismatic cells greatly lower cell count, LiFePo4 rated at 280 Ah can be purchased for about $50 per cell and that chemistry has a much higher cycle life than LiIon. There are many other promising battery techonlogies being developed.
Battery capacity, in large part being driven by energy density, is the key to practical electric vehicles. Today’s batteries are barely adaquate.
It works for people who do not drive long distances, but not for the rest of us.
Then there is the problem of our power grid, which is not up to charging EVs for everyone.
Ideally, all heating would be based on cogeneration at homes, with power produced at night used to charge vehicle batteries. Cooling could be based on absorbsion systems, which are already in common use in large buildings.
Mass produced small business and residential cogeneration would greatly lower grid stress and provide a much more robust grid, with an added benefit of taking robber barron middle men mostly out of the picture.
What is “cogeneration at homes?”
Cogeneration is where you supply electricity and heat form a system. It also applies to a solar array which is cooled with water to lower its temperature and improve its electrical out while doing so.
It is too expensive to run a generator for home use, but doing so occasionally with a solar system makes the cost reasonable, especially when waste heat is captured.
Think of it this way, you intermittent power sources and say a 25KW battery bank. Most of the time you have enough power, so on rare occasions it is overcast, then you use the generator.
There is much more to this, but this should give you something to think about..
You are repeating empty “progressive” buzzwords. Laughable. Sell it to the New York Times. They buy liberal fantasies.
They aren’t progressive words they are technical terms describing how something works. It’s functional engineering
This is pretty common for remote Cabins. The Stirling engine is the basic template for a demo. Could be used more widely.
The Stirling based tech exists and is commercially effective. Large up front costs so not viable at residential applications.
Couple of examples:
Wood or pellet stove with a water tank attached. Stove heats the water which moves out and into piping that runs around the home and back into the tank. Makes a very simple and efficient use of waste heat.
Now think about your AC. It pushes lots of heated air that is used to dissipate heat. It’s waste energy. If that heat/energy was used to heat water now you have a hot water tank powered by what was wasted energy/heat.
Local energy generation is dumb, because it’s inefficient even after transmission losses are considered.
That is true if you only utilize power, and not make use of waste heat. Waste heat, or hot water from a roof or that cools solar electric panels, can power an absorbsion air conditioner.
When I built my home, I buried 2 loops of pipe, one in the concrete slab, and the other a foot below. If the house is cold heat is dumped into a radiator in the furnace, when the air is warm, then the heat is stored in the cement slab, and when that is warm, the heat is routed to heat a large volume of earth, and that rises up over time. Hot water comes from a generator or a wood fired boiler. The furnace can also use LP to heat the house.
Trash can also be burned for heat.
These issues need to be addressed as a system..
You are a joke. The Washington Post will love your insanity.
Maybe you can cite where you think there is a problem?
It’s not really about energy generation to the grid. It’s about making jokes carbon neutral. If a home doesn’t require electricity from the grid and that’s done at scale ie lots of houses then great. The ideal scenario would be that houses require 0 electric from the grid, and only requiring the grid as backup.
Disagree. Point of use solar is viable as a choice. Someone wants to spend $ on panels and inverters? Ok, it’s their money.
Big solar farms? Not so much. On a military base or large commercial tract that uses the electric on site? Ok.
Big solar farm in the remote desert which needs new transmission lines and easements to reach the buyer? No. Not competitive, efficient or green when all factors considered.
If the driver of a hybrid relies almost exclusively on his electric and not on his gas, doesn’t he risk his gas (even if stabilized) going bad and gumming up his carburetors/fuel injectors? I once bought a motorcycle that had been left un-run for over a year, and I needed to rebuild the carbs because the gas had turned into varnish.
He would face that risk after about 6 months. This would be easily counteracted by making sure to use the gas engine for a half-hour or so every couple months.
“. . . will charge at 5kW or about 15 miles per hour . . .
Had to listen to that one several times before it made sense. For every hour you charge your car at that charge point you gain the ability to drive 15 miles (maybe) added to your mileage.
So to actually charge enough to realistically get anywhere you might want to go you’ll have to sit your butt at that charging station for several hours before you have enough charge to get anywhere?
Wow, that sounds just so convenient. Rather just pull my car up to the pump, swipe my card, fill my tank and be on my way in a few minutes (with enough fuel to get me at least a hundred miles or more down the road) than waste hours at some electrical charge point.
But that’s just me.
Charge times vary depending on the EV and the charger. For almost all EVs sold in the past 3 or 4 years — including Teslas — they’ll add anywhere from about 1-1/4 miles of range per minute at the plug to 5 or 6 miles a minute. A compact gas car will add at least 140 miles of range per minute at the gas pump.
Also: Unlike gas cars at the pump, EVs do not charge at a constant rate. So those volt/amp charger numbers have to be interpreted correctly; EV charging slows down markedly after the state of charge goes higher than 50% or 60%.
By the way, not even my first-generation Think City EV charges THAT slowly. Read my other posts in this thread and you will see that I am anything but an EVangelist. But facts are facts. A Tesla will add 240-300 miles of range in an hour at a so-called “supercharger,” at least if there aren’t too many cars sharing a trunk line.
A more plebian newer EV — a Nissan LEAF being an example — will add 80-150 miles of range per hour, depending on the charger. Don’t get me wrong: I think those are terrible numbers compared to gas vehicles. Still, I say be guided by the facts, or you are as bad as they are.
My early-adopter kid did the hybrid dance, and he’s firmly back in the IC camp.
Technology so clearly superior you have to forbid the public to use anything else.
I own an EV. I bought it for two reasons: Sheer curiosity, and the manufacturer (Think) was going out of business and liquidated the inventory at 70% off. I will forget more than most people will know about them.
First thing to say is that a “Level 2” charger plugs into the same 240v outlet that your electric dryer uses. Those devices are cheap, and no harder to use than plugging in anything else. The idea that 70% of CA’s EV switchers lacked a “Level 2” charger is highly doubtful. To not have a “Level 2” charger is to be even dumber than the average Californian, which means plenty dumb.
Secondly, EV chargers are s-l-o-w, and that includes the so-called Tesla “superchargers.” My first-generation Think EV adds 0.6 miles of range per minute. The newer-generation EVs charge at twice as much power with Level 2, because they use the full amperage on a typical 240v dryer circuit, which is 30 amps. Mine charges at 14 amps, which was typical for these things at first.
There are other charging tiers. “DC fast chargers” will add about 3 miles of range per minute, and Tesla’s “superchargers” will do 5 miles a minute on a good day, which means that there aren’t a bunch of other Tesla’s sharing the charger.
The average compact gas car gets 28 mpg, and the typical gas pump runs at 5 gallons a minute (I’ve checked.) Which means it adds 140 miles of range per minute at the pump. This is a conservative number; in reality, it’s higher, but I don’t want to state a questionable claim. Past that, there’s so much daylight between 1 to 5 miles a minute and 140 miles a minute that there’s no point in quibbling.
Naturally, here in WA State, the Ds who run the state have jacked up EV registration fees to finance a network of DC fast chargers that will operate at roughly 1/70th the charge rate of a compact gas car. Why know anything when you’re a legislator? Facts only get in the way.
p.s.: For those who might reply that you can’t park an EV next to the clothes dryer, I have two words: Extension cord. Hey, it’s California. They need help. LOL
Or simply run 10/3 w ground to where the car will be charged. And while doing that also install an outside for a generator.
There are all kinds of solutions, but for well <$2o0 you can get a Level 2 charging cord and a 240v extension cord. No need to do any mechanical alterations to anything. I simply don't believe that 70% of the switchers lacked access to 240v at home. EVERYONE has 240v at home, or at least "just about everyone."
If you don't have 240v at home, then you'd be a complete idiot to get an EV.
Interesting to get your view, I don’t think there is any doubt that if you use your car a lot then EV is problematic at the moment. I love the idea but I do 50k plus miles a year so not for me just yet. Those using there cars for minimal use ie shopping or other low mileage activities EV is fine. I’ll wait for the next generation before considering though … If the manufacturer’s claims hold true the next gen might get around 250 miles on a single charge and charge in circa 20 mins but shall see I guess
The average car is driven about 12,000 miles a year. If you’re driving 50,000 miles a year, you are a very different car driver than just about everyone. Which is just fine, but you’re quite atypical. The battery-only EVs out there would certainly not be a good fit for you. As things stand now, EVs are very much an urban commuter deal. Not enough range for long journeys, unless the driver is okay with spending a LOT of time at chargers.
If he’s driving–in the UK, no less–50,000 miles a year, I’ll eat my hat (which is made of cotton candy, Unicorn-farted Skittles, and ‘mark311 is a big, fat liar’ candy valentines).
Indeed id absolutely agree with that
Uhg that was supposed to be a response to Randomcrank
Better start eating your hat.
Oh. My. God. You live in teensy-tiny England and drive (DRIVE) more than 50,000 miles a year? What the hell do you do? Drive every single road, lane, and herd path in the entire UK a hundred times a year and still have to head to Europe to get more miles?
You are the fakiest faker of all fakers. More than 50K miles! A YEAR! It’s only like 2.7K miles to drive from NY to Cali (and what freaking moron would DRIVE that unless the journey was the point)? I can’t stop laughing.
I’m a Building Surveyor so run construction projects, look at defects in buildings, some specific building related legal issues. I’m on the road a lot visiting sites. Its not so much I have to travel long distances (although occasionally I do, well long distances for the UK) I have to go to a lot of different places. Its not unusual for a business like mine if the projects are all over the UK (although mostly the south).
The train doesn’t make a lot of sense unless its London and even then I prefer car but then I’m odd like that.
28mpg is horrible, I’m guessing that’s for an SUV or truck?
Horrible or wonderful, that’s what it is.
no mention, in the video, about where those charging stations get the electricity. the emissions are still there, just not at the tailpipe.
have been in the automotive industry since ’89–have seen a bit over the years–so far, regards hybrids/EVs, etc,. have yet to see any concrete evidence/examples that electrics are going to supplant internal combustion power in the forseeable future
am reminded of a dealer conference attended in 2011 or so where, after all the factory splash/pr/tech nonsense presentation concerning a new EV model, one of the dealers said to me, over drinks at the center’s hotel, ” this launch hasn’t got a damn thing to do with selling cars. it’s about selling stock. ” prophetic words indeed–and, as it turns out, accurate
The electric car concept is another leftist cockamamie idea. Leftists will not honestly share with you all of the secondary consequences of their insanity. Grab your bonnet.
Take a valium. Electric motive power is not new. Every freight train uses electric motors to turn the wheels. Did a cockamamie leftist invent the diesel-electric locomotive?
Just great. I see that (not) my governor Cooper of North Carolina is on board with banning gas-powered vehicles. Perhaps he has stock in Duke Power. Perhaps he’s an idiot. I’ll bet it’s both and it makes perfect sense coming from someone who has no clue about “the science” of viruses, and doesn’t give one whit about the effect that his idiocy produces.
even hybrids are not saving any petrol.
Lack of electrical infrastructure capacity is not a problem because the ultimate goal is to force the peasants out of all motorized vehicles. You can imagine the intended consequences.