Why all the EV hate?

You are right, although I personally know that if I use ex. less energy I also pollute less (it's an easy to understand causality and 'should' be obvious to everyone) and I have to pay less to the power company. The additional money saved can go into other things like a vacation or a new EV ...

Sent from my moto x4 using Tapatalk

 

Vacations can cause pollution for example if you fly in a Jet aircraft or take a boat ride in non electric boat Just kidding, your point about money for other things of more importance is well taken.

 

Nah not really.
My clothes dryer, when I had one, uses 240 same as my plug in would with the fast charger and using it most every day probably about the same as my plug in time considered.
We all need to drive, but do we need the clothes dryer? Really it matters not what people think. For most of us in the US 90 percent of clothes dryer use in not necessary. Sure there is winter in Minn and all that, but for the most of us there is as well 9 other months of the year and in places like the whole American south west mostly no need at all.
We don't have to live like monks, but grossly wasteful things with ready useable alternatives have to stop immediately. We are that far along. Soon continueing as we are, we will have to live like monks to right this thing.

I personally with the new purchase of the plug in stopped using a electric heater I use. Why that...it uses approximately again the same about as charging the car. What do I use instead, a bit more wood which is in the main rotting wood from long dead trees. Most cannot do things like that but that serves as example, it is not just cars or airplanes or this or that dryers, it is all energy used and what produces more carbon than another thing. We need to fly but also without to much we can make fuel efficient planes.
A clothes dryer, a wasteful extravagance for 90 percent of use(we could quibble on the percent). I will allow Minn in winter places like that. But that is not all year and most don't live there. All summer is basically a clothes dryer, a wasteful expense nine out of ten days. We don't have to chuck the clothes dryer like I have done, but a clothes line cost like a dollar or two. Apartments, places like NYC the interior courtyard of every apartment had what.....nothing but clothes lines hung from wall to wall.

On vacations flying and all...there are voluntary standards most operators are trying to meet, some in the interest of the environment and some in the interest of saving costs. Nothing under the sun says we could not require fuel standards to be met with large carriers, same as we do in smaller fashions with cars.
This would involve research and study to develop concensus, so safety is not impinged, but we could make a dent in that. Older planes are naturally less efficient. Providing governmental stimulus that would push carriers towards newer planes would probably not only help safety but be more efficient.
Extreme view holds we must stop flying entirely or restrict it greatly, but is that really necessary? If this was the ninetten fifties, we would probably suppose to fight this thing, we must stop driving cars entirely, but that is as we now know is probably not necessary.
Waste, gross wasteful practices with handy alternatives simply have to stop.
We do not take this course and mark my words, in a century we will find we have to restrict not just the wasteful, but things that are for most of us now essential, to stop this thing. Most simply do not realize the hazard before us.
WE have now a big to do about a thousand or so on our border. Consider perhaps a billion or so that need to relocate due to one cause or another. Reasonably can we not fathom of that billion a few more than our current thousand will be trying by any means possible to enter this place?
What a to do that will be,several million.What wall will keep out not a thousand but a hundred million, How tall will be that wall? And how much expense to build a wall so high a hundred million are kept out?

 

What people think is the core of the issue if you want to drive change. First you start attacking what the majority already know to be wrong, then you pickup the extras by promoting efficiency, cost savings etc.

80% of people could happily commute to work by bike instead of driving a car. You won’t hear me badgering people that they need to change, but you will see me leading by example, and promoting EVs.

 

No one is badgering anyone. That comment is misplaced. And my statement on peoples opinions as to what people think, is not a isolated one but in response to yours which is this..." Consumers generally believe washers and dryers are not environmentally harmful, so there's no need to consider it. "
What people think of the consequence of washer and dryer use and their impact on the environment, has no standing on the use of the things and their actual harm to the environment. I do not include washers in that as there is not a viable alternative. That is diluting the intend of my comment it is quite clearly specific on dryers and misrepresents my position. We cannot opinion our way out of this pickle we are in. Dryers produce carbon always. Line drying does not and for the vast majority of us in the vast majority of the year it is a ready handy alternative which not only saves carbon but money.

I don't know what you mean by wrong in this...."start attacking what the majority already know to be wrong,".
There also is not a attack going on here nor are there things known to be wrong. Transportation is part of the problem and most cost efficient means with the least production of carbon must be endeavored to fight this thing. The key is not to select individual issues we may care to attack as you say, but to look at all areas where waste occurs and it does not have to. Nothing is wrong all right in this thing, these are only choices on how to do things we are presented with. IN this specific electric as opposed to gas or diesel as for car transportation makes more sense, as well as line drying of clothing when it is possible and suitable. It is necessary to be consistant in messaging and this consistency is presented with the theme, unnecessary is no longer suitable. Framing this as attacking and partial mentions to suit a audience, is never part of successful messaging. Consistant and widespread application dependent upon universal themes is what works and will work, not attacking and only selecting things on a case by case basis.
If a thing is easily doable it must be mentioned. Things that are not doable of course are not to be mentioned. We cannot live in caves in hair shirts. But using a dryer when one is absolutely not necessary for most of us is not that at all.

 

A tenet of traditional economics has been humans behave in a rational manner, that all their decisions are based on a rational analysis of the options. The growth of behavioral economics has validated what sales and marketing people have known for centuries, by appealing to what people think, they can get people to do things which may not be the "rational" choice. People who pay big bucks to buy a Bugatti Veyron are not buying it based on mpg, they are buying it as status symbol or for the thrill, based on what they think. No, we do not need washers and dryers, the concept of what is modern clothes washer was patented around mid 1800"s and become popular in the 20th century. Did people not wash and dry clothes before that? Did people not travel 1000s of miles before the advent of cars and highways systems. Airlines are now phasing out older planes now as their decisions are more based on economics. Fuel is the biggest cost for airlines, and it is rational economic decision to phase out inefficient planes and replace them with more efficient ones. However, airlines often cloak this decision based on "saving the planet" as it appeals to a segment of the people, even though it benefits the airline financially. Just like hotels appeal to you to reuse your towels for environmental reasons, rather than to reduce laundry costs. If Hotels were so much concerned about the environment, they would reduce all the unnecessary lighting in the lobbies but that might give people a wrong impression about the hotel. So it does matter what people think.

Exactly, change has to be from what people are comfortable with and then you accelerate.

 

Change of behavior has many motivators. Comfort is arbitrary. The founder of this line of thought in advertiseing actually employed means that had nothing to do with comfort in his aim to enable women to smoke with the same variance as men(a position he later regretted).
Women were not comfortable smoking due to societal norms. He changed the acceptable norms. You are missing a fundamental component of the driver to this means of advertiseing.
My point also is specific to dryer use and is being represented by the inclusion of washers and dryers. There is no handy equilivent of use present in past times that provided means to wash clothes as at present. A hand line dry is simply not that equal found to washing of clothes by hand as opposed to machine.
I suppose your argument on my specific must not suffice.

On the airlines two things are weighed, the cost of purchase of newer equipment and the cost of the operation of the existing equipment. The two are weighed against eachother to determine purchase time. This may be pushed ahead by government regulation which supports newer equipment(planes). Newer equipment being always more efficient. And purchase choice may be favored also by pushing the selection process to be more a efficiency choice than a cost choice. A more efficient airplane simply costs more to make. All newer planes are more efficient but there is much variance as to what brand and model is more efficient than another.
Airlines will simply not pay ten times more presently to buy and use planes which will in kind be ten times more fuel efficient. The cost of fuel simply does not justify the expenditure. Other means of managing fuel costs are commonly endeavored as well, to include ownership interest of refineries and long term contracting options. They all want more efficient new planes and get them with purchase. But as length of service of existing fleets attests, cost of fuel is but one factor and relatively minor at that compared to many others which make airlines profitable.

Market solutions as we see in the auto industry simply do not suffice to provide optimal possible efficiency. Even a f350 owner wants it to get better gas mileage. But government impetus is necessary. With cars we find cafe standards which most all nations of a industrialized sort have now replicated. Simply we need to establish similar standards in the airline industry. These may be developed by establishment of consensus standards of operation. A industry group devoted entirely to airline efficiency already exists.

The thinking of what constitutes carbon generation on a individual basis in personal thought, has no relevance to the issue of what actually consists of by scientific analysis and determination, carbon creation in atmosphere.
Nature and science have no concern for us what so ever nor what we think. All means of reasonable carbon reduction strategies must be endeavored. With the emphasis on reasonable. Certainly line drying of clothes fits this accommodation. It is in most areas, in most times of the year on most days and in virtually any homes with a yard and in any apartment with a courtyard, easily done with little effort and zero cost.

Washing clothes by hand is in no means equilivent. It is hard tedious work best avoided. Hanging clothes on a line...one must by clips and a line that is all of it.
Simply easily done by almost(not all) of us most of the year and on most days of the year(again not all) in most places most americans live.

A family of five say two parent three teenages girls, perhaps a grandmom in tow would easily use 2 hours of dryer time daily. That is necessary in minn in the dead of winter certainly. IN that same place in summer, mostly no, it is likely all done line dry to no detriment at all. And two hours with 240, which is operational efficiency of most dryers, is also approximate charging time for a whole day of work to home or carrying kids around, driving for most of us.
All summer a equilivent to driving can be totally easily removed with no cost and very little effort, and we do not do such.....as we think it is or may be unpopular to do so? We think it a bit to much, to clip some clothes to a line as opposed to take them in and out of a machine?
That line of thinking has no inherent validity and is easily changed. it simply has to be explained how this is so. Reluctance to do anything personally at all which does not personally perhaps benefit us in a immediate kind is this the only obstacle.
Like not eating vegan but that is another issue. This being far simpler and much more easily seen for what it is..unnecessary indulgence and waste.
WE do not make these simple easy choices before us that require little in the main of effort, and are only very little inconvient to do, and in the future only large difficult largly inconvient choices will be our fodder.

 

Or, hotels could switch to 100% LED lighting, preserving the light level while being much more energy efficient, and thus more "green".

I'm not claiming that sort of transition will work in every application, but we can go a long way towards a lower carbon footprint without having to give up such things as washers and dryers. Sure, it's possible to live without those and other labor-saving devices. It's also possible to live without electricity, motorcars, modern medicine, or anything else humans have invented since the stone age.

But few would choose to live as a primitive hunter-gatherer. Just look at Amerind reservations. How many are living there according to their tribe's traditions, eschewing modern conveniences? No, almost everyone on "the res" would rather have such things as electricity, hot and cold running water, and indoor toilets.

​

 

Curtailing energy usage for say lighting or for any other matter can come from multiple actions, replacing with LED, have fewer lights but better positioned, eliminating superfluous lights etc. Similarly, with EV's, I do not think that we can realistically suggest getting rid of ICEs with EVs, it has to be a gradual shift and it may never be a 100%.

Rather than Amerind example, I would use the Amish, who forsake most modern technology but don't outright reject it. https://groups.etown.edu/amishstudies/cultural-practices/technology/ . I am no sociologist, I do not see the way of life is really extendable to a larger swath of the population. Most of us want modern technology but we need to learn to use it responsibly, which is the challenge.

 

Agree we do not have to live like monks nor would we want to in hair shirts. But drying clothes on a line is not a physical endeavor at all it involves the least expenditure of energy and thus is clearly not labor saving. The only safe port in this storm of discussion is apparently to lump in drying clothes on a line with all sorts of things it does not distinctly resemble. Riding bikes to work flying in jets and now modern medicine and a whole litany of things it does not in any fashion resemble.

No it is a simple and easy as throwing clothes into a clothes dryer physically. Some select individuals and in some circumstances it is not practicable. One does have to walk to the window or out doors in a home they will need to go to the yard, but that is usually 30 steps away. Clearly you also have no reasonable retort as you are presenting straw mans of such wide elaboration.

It is not important at all, being diverse to point but many or perhaps by population most, natives in the americas prior to the European invasion were not hunter gatherers. Navajo Apache those sort who assuredly were, in the same general areas were also all the pueblo tribes who were agriculturally based. They hunted to supplement food source but permenant residence were established and growing things were the primary food source. They were not hunter gatherers. If we extend south the Azteca and others were as the pueblo tribes not that also.

But again it is that no one here is saying we must resort to going to live in caves. It is irresponsible in discussion to conflate using a line to dry clothes during warm summer months with living as a hunter gatherer. That is a absurd contention to make.

 

This is well put and correct. Using things responsibility and not using technology just for the sake of technology or inordinate ease are key. Clothes dryers during summer for most of us, are totally wasteful endeavors which serve not much at all as to function and only minimally with ease. It is in fashion. A fashion developed in the main in the fifties, a time when energy use was just not a thing. And now they are handy, when in dead of winter and when in some select circumstances when they may not be used such as rainy weather.
Climate deniers at present show equal type arguments when one ventures the necessity to go with electric for autos. Why that they say,do we then have to go back to horse and buggies is versed. Well no we may reply,that is presenting a straw man, no one is saying we need to go back to horses and buggies. What is being said is there are better ways to do things on occasion and we must employ them and be more versitile in our options considered. Yes do not use the clothes dryer on 240 every day, another option is available and effort wise it is almost the same.

If clothes lines were new things never before used, take my word on it the environmental crowd would be all touting their great invention. But unlike electric cars and such they are not in the slightest sort technological and yes, quite actually boring and mundane. Which does however not mean we must never employ them. Three or less flights up a building one should also walk up the stairs, once there were no elevators as well.... but that is another action quite boring and mundane. The most efficient elevators now present, there are many most building owners as well want least energy use, is simply not comparable to walking what may easily be done, three or so flights for most of us. But now clearly stated that be, will be stated to the inverse, it is stated ….we must all walk up 100 flight climbs to save energy it is claimed. A preposterous thing none of course will do.
NO electric cars is it and only it...which is a joke I just made, to be clear. Or to phrase it more clearly but perhaps impolitely...you all must certainly be joking by such fashion to rule out this thing proposed.
No using a clothes dryer is now being amish...how silly that claim. What next, shall we bring in gengis Khan this could include anything it seems this way of framing it.
No personal offense intended,, this is not a personal or individual notation in any manner. But the more I participate in climate change discussion and run into things like this, the more it is I realize there is not a iceballs chance in hell for us. We are doomed to suffer the result which is not a one desired and will result in many untimely demises in the end.
A simple easy thing as clothes line drying of clothes on occasion, is summarily discounted as sending us back to native American times of hunting gathering or the time presently of amish...I simply cannot believe it.

 

How gradual is "gradual"? New York City went from being almost entirely served by horse-drawn vehicles to almost entirely served by motor vehicles in the space of about 13 years. Some think it will take longer for the EV revolution to achieve a similar success, but I think and hope they are wrong.

As far as PEVs never replacing gasmobiles 100%... well, there are still people riding horses, and not just the Amish, either. I'll be perfectly happy with that level of replacement.

 

Like chastity, ICE is its own reward and punishment.

Bob Wilson

 

I agree. One word. “ why”

 

Ah, EVs have been here for quite a few years and there are just making a small dent. Will it take another 13 years from now? I don't know. It begins gradually and there will be an exponential growth at a certain point time, the S curve. http://i0.wp.com/www.business-planning-for-managers.com/Worpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/adoption_curve.jpg

I would guess we are somewhere in later part of the innovator phase but moving towards the middle of the early adopter phase, where the growth is accelerating but we have not reach the early majority phase yet. We have still not reached the jump off point yet. For example, more than 17 million vehicles were sold in 2018 and as per @Domenick stats, about 360,000+ were EVs and PHEVs. So we are around the 2% mark. I am talking about the EV market as a whole, not just Tesla. As the penetration increases, the growth rate will increase. If it took about 10 years (assuming the market started around 2008/2009) to get to here, it looks like it will about 10-12 more years to have 70% market penetration. (My rough extrapolation, it could be less time) but that is what my guess is

 

The hate will start disappearing when we reach the early majority phase as it will become more common place.

 

I find the notion not hard to fathom at all. What were prius's to any who saw them firstly...clearly a city only vehicle. They could not transverse any dirt roads remote areas that may not be city like and thus were denied ownership to a large segment of the rural population. And then to boot the government gives a tax bonus to all who do and can buy them?
And who most suffers gas prices, it is a rural person who travels twice as far usually in daily things as any city commuter does.
So no possibility of ownership, a unfair(in their eyes since they could not get that) government response and the most served population rural may not have one. How could hate of those who own them not occur?
This approach to ownership and initial design prevented acceptance.
Electric vehicles now it is starting to bet better. But for every SUV vehicle there are still in the main city only, by ten to one, at my best guess.
I can finally buy a SUV type vehicle for the first time. How many years into this now are we? Not the owners fault certainly but emotion is not logical and there is much to recommend the idea rural in this was treated unfairly. Which was really the case in internet access as well up until recently. It was then as result in some communities rural, the devils tool.
So blame rural for how they feel or blame the manufacturers for not seeing a problem and providing a result to allay the problem. But it is pretty clear to me why it is so easy to hate in this regard.
Pickups real things rural buys, it will devolve entirely. Till then not at all.

 

Also New York City is a small market in itself, we need to look at the whole country and it took about 25 years (from the late 1890s to early 1920s) before the number of cars were more than horse drawn carriages (i.e. 50 % market penetration). So going with that analogy it will be another 10 years or so (assuming that acceleration is faster) to get to about 70% + for EVs and PHEVs

 

I will argue (as a matter of opinion, not fact) that the graph you posted isn't really applicable to the EV revolution. I'll argue that we are already in the Early Adopter phase, which started in 2008 with the original Tesla Roadster. Once there is a mass produced product, I think it's appropriate to consider it the Early Adopter phase. I'd call the "innovator" phase of the EV revolution that phase when people were still experimenting with do-it-yourself conversions of gasmobiles, and various auto makers were trying test market EVs such as the EV1, the RAV4 EV, and the 2004 Silverado/Sierra PHEV.

I don't think there is any question that the EV revolution will follow the classic "S-curve" of market penetration and adoption. But the questions are, just when will the rapid rise portion of that S-curve kick in, and how steep will the increase be?

I think it has already started, in 2018. But that's going to be clear only in hindsight; prediction in this market is as hard as prediction usually is.

“It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future.” -- Yogi Berra



I think the harbinger of "The Breakthrough" event, as shown on the graph above, was the astounding ~455,000 paid pre-production reservations for the Model 3, altho the actual start of the rapid S-curve rise didn't start until Model 3 production hit its stride in 2018. Again, that's just my opinion... not fact.

​

 

I also need to preface my remarks with a "no offense intended" disclaimer; this is a debate over opinions and preferences, not facts. But I think most people who would claim that a clothes dryer is simply a "fashion" and isn't much of a labor-saving device, has most likely never lived without one. I have; when I was a child, a clothes line is what we used to dry clothes. And it's possible to do so even in the middle of a Minnesota winter; you can string up a clothes line inside. I've done that, too, when living in a studio apartment with no clothes washer or dryer in the apartment.

But like all labor-saving devices, from dishwashers to clothes washers to using a word processor on a computer instead of a typewriter, very few of those who have used the more advanced tech would ever voluntarily go back to the hand-operated method.

In the modern world, the solution to clothes dryers using a lot of energy is to switch to renewable sources of energy, not giving up the labor-saving device. On the other hand, if someone could invent a clothes dryer which uses a lot less energy, I'd certainly be in favor of that!

But the problem is that the proposed solutions from the "green" crowd generally involve living more simply, with fewer modern conveniences. That's not going to sell. Worse, it's ignoring the most fundamental problem: Overpopulation. Even if everyone lived like a third-world farmer, that wouldn't solve the problem.

Just look at all the slash-and-burn agriculture which is destroying the Amazon rain forest. I saw a documentary on that situation. They interviewed a farmer, who said he knew what he was doing was illegal, but what could he do? "I have to feed my family", he said. And that argument is going to trump all the arguments that the "green movement" comes up with. Nobody is going to convince someone to voluntarily give up his lifestyle if it means his family is going to starve.

We can try for a half-a-loaf... or more accurately, a quarter-of-a-loaf partial solution; one that will only slow global warming and climate change. A partial solution involving everyone in first-world countries voluntarily choosing to live like those in third-world countries.

But the actual solution to the problem will require draconian birth control, and strict population limits. The human population must be limited to what the carrying capacity of the Earth's ecosystem can handle. Very clearly, we have exceeded that limit. Talking about the problems of pollution and greenhouse gas emissions is only talking about the symptom of the real problem of overpopulation. To some extent, I think it's a deliberate attempt to distract from the underlying cause.

If we human beings can limit our numbers to something reasonable, then there's no reason we can't all "live rich". There's no reason, other than greed and ignorance and indifference, for anyone to live poor. It's the total amount of greenhouse gases and pollution that the human species emits that's the ultimate problem. Trying to limit just those whose lifestyle causes the most emissions and the most pollution, trying to limit them to a lower standard of living, isn't a long-term solution to the problem. It's short-term thinking.

In fact, it's the richest countries in the world which are successfully controlling their populations. Europe is actually seeing a very slight population decline over time. And in the U.S., the only reason the population keeps rising is that far more immigrants (both legal and illegal) come here to live every year. Now, I'm not saying that first-world countries don't have an overpopulation problem. Probably most of them do need to reduce their numbers, but at least the problem there isn't getting worse every year.

It's the third-world countries where populations are exploding. So limiting everyone to living at a third-world standard would actually be counter-productive.

With sufficient limits to the numbers of humans on Planet Earth, the problems of global warming and greenhouse gas emissions would vanish. Pollution would once again become just a local problem, not a global one. Imposing such draconian population limits in third-world countries seems impossible. I don't see how it can be done in a manner widespread and effective enough to actually solve the problem. Sadly, the only effective method of population control in such regions would be ones that only megalomaniac madman would propose; "solutions" such as deliberately spreading epidemic diseases.

Of course, if there was an easy solution, then we'd already be using it.