Are we still convinced that electric vehicles are the best way forward?

teamzr1

Supporting vendor
Affluent liberals will do nearly anything to parade their own perceived moral virtue, including fleecing their neighbors at gunpoint.
In the end, however, the only thing on parade is tragicomic liberalism.

On July 25, Megan Davey Limarzi, Inspector General of Montgomery County, Maryland, issued a blistering memorandum regarding her office’s (OIG) investigation into Montgomery County Public Schools’ catastrophic management of an electric bus contract, which has cost taxpayers millions and forced MCPS to rely on diesel buses.

The sad story began with the usual virtue signaling.

“On February 23, 2021, as part of its commitment to sustainability, MCPS announced it was replacing 326 diesel school buses with electric school buses,” Limarzi wrote.

That ambitious purchase came at a cost of $168,684,990.

According to, Montgomery County ranks as the 3rd-wealthiest county in Maryland with a median household income of $125,583.

In the 2020 election, President Joe Biden won Montgomery County by a staggering 60 percentage points, per Politico.

In other words, these are exactly the sort of affluent liberals who worship the god of climate change and would adopt even the most authoritarian remedy if it meant that they could feel good about saving the planet.

Alas, Limarzi found that the electric bus contractor “did not deliver any of the buses expected in FY2022 through FY2024 by August 1st as required by the agreement’s delivery schedule.”
Nor will the contractor meet said delivery goal for the 2024-25 school year.

With that in mind, MCPS should have assessed fees, as it would have done under a diesel bus contract.
But it did not do so, which cost an additional $1.8 million.

This led Limarzi to conclude that MCPS had utterly fleeced taxpayers.

“MCPS’s failure to hold the contractor accountable to the terms of the contract and their decision not to include provisions to offset incurred expenses has led to millions of dollars in wasteful spending,” the local inspector general wrote.

Furthermore, MCPS ignored the electric buses’ chronic mechanical failures.

“Mechanical and/or charging infrastructure issues resulted in buses not being able to run routes in more than 280 instances from February 10, 2022, through March 31, 2024,” Limarzi wrote.
And yet, despite the contractor’s repeated failures to service the buses, MCPS inexplicably assessed no fees. That decision cost taxpayers another $372,100.

Incredibly, lost fees alone cost taxpayers more than $2.1 million.

Meanwhile, MCPS has spent another $14,749,919 on 90 diesel buses to cover the shortfall.
Thus, in light of the original purchase, the total cost to taxpayers has approached $200 million.

In sum, the OIG investigation “substantiated that MCPS’ reluctance to enforce the terms of the agreement and failure to include penalties to offset incurred expenses has led to millions of dollars in wasteful spending and drastically hindered MCPS’s ability to meet its environmental goals.”

Though drafted in no-nonsense language, Limarzi’s memorandum highlighted the pseudo-religious hysteria at the core of the climate change narrative.
First, to showcase their “commitment to sustainability,” MCPS authorized an outrageous original outlay of $168,684,990.

Then, when they failed to receive the electric buses on time, they did not assess a fee.
Better to leave one’s neighbors holding the bag than to undermine one’s beliefs by rebuking an EV contractor.

Furthermore, the buses that did arrive suffered nearly 300 operational issues over a two-year period. Again, though, better to make taxpayers foot the bill than to entertain questions about electric buses’ reliability.

Meanwhile, taxpayers must pay their taxes at the point of a gun if necessary. That is tragicomic liberalism on parade.
 

teamzr1

Supporting vendor
The fiery failure of an electric vehicle led to countless other cars being damaged and caused conditions hostile enough to send nearly two dozen people to the hospital.
The devastating incident unfolded on the morning of Aug. 1 as an electric Mercedes-Benz EQE caught fire while parked in a packed underground garage below an Incheon, South Korea, apartment complex.
The vehicle was not charging or running when it ignited.

According to Korea JoongAng Daily, the fire department received nearly 200 calls while the fire spread and belched black smoke into the sky.
In total, 177 first responders arrived to fight the fire and handle evacuations of the complex.
Despite the massive response, it took emergency crews eight hours to extinguish the blaze completely.

In total, 106 people were rescued as smoke filled the area, and 103 others were evacuated.
No deaths were reported, but 21 people were sent to the hospital with injuries sustained during the fire.
Several children and a firefighter were among those hospitalized.
A surveillance video from the garage showed white smoke streaming from the Mercedes.
An explosion followed a few seconds later, igniting the blaze.

In an Aug. 5 update, Korea JoongAng Daily reported the electric vehicle contained batteries made by a Chinese firm.
“The batteries are from Farasis Energy based on the report that Mercedes-Benz Korea submitted to us,” a Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport representative said.
Farasis, based in Ganzhou, China, is one of only two suppliers Mercedes taps to source EQE batteries.
The other company, Contemporary Amperex Technology, is also based in China.
According to The Chosun Daily, there are more than 3,000 EQE models equipped with Farasis cells currently in South Korea.
While the cause of the fire and any accelerating factors are still being investigated by authorities, consumers appear to be turning on Mercedes-Benz Korea for its actions after the disaster.

According to The Korea Times, Mercedes is losing trust in the country due to its “overly defensive” response to the fire. Part of the problem appears to be the company’s willingness to pledge a donation in the amount of 4.5 billion Korean won (roughly $3.3 million) while refusing to issue a public apology.

In addition, Mercedes has kept details about its battery supply chain largely under wraps despite consumer concerns.
Mercedes signed a 10-year deal with Farasis in 2018, leaving the auto giant tied to the battery manufacturer for another few years, Korea JoongAng Daily reported.
 

Rich Steel

CCCUK Member
I ran a plug-in BMW hybrid for 3 years and 60k miles. The only time I plugged it was during Covid when my employers said that being as all of with company cars (and working from home) were not to put petrol in the cars (and charge to the company credit card). So with a supposed batter range of 23 miles, 18 miles according to dash display and a 'real' range of 15 miles it didn't go too far for a 5 hour charge off a 13amp 3 pin plug. Was the cheaper that petrol.......now? Perhaps not?
Plug mine in all the time. When driving locally where I live in Thanet and as far out as Canterbury or Faversham, I'm almost 100% e electric (less so in winter) but also economical on longer runs. I.e. Averaging 47 mph with 3 adults and luggage in car at motorway and autobahn speeds on return trips to the Dolomites for skiing. It works for me.
 

Roscobbc

Moderator
Plug mine in all the time. When driving locally where I live in Thanet and as far out as Canterbury or Faversham, I'm almost 100% e electric (less so in winter) but also economical on longer runs. I.e. Averaging 47 mph with 3 adults and luggage in car at motorway and autobahn speeds on return trips to the Dolomites for skiing. It works for me.
I found the BMW (2 series active tourer) perhaps biased more towards performance than economy from the hybrid set-up. A 'mere' 1500 cc turbo 3 banger with the hybrid drive was a sub 6 second 0-60 car, really quite tractile in a very no-shout in your face way......but was at best mid 30's mpg urban and never, ever better than low 40's on a run.
Contrasted totally with previouis 2.4 ltr Luxus IS which generally was low/medium 40's mpg urban and high 40's cruise.
 

teamzr1

Supporting vendor
Criminals are targeting Tesla Superchargers and other charging infrastructure in Texas, California, Minnesota and around the world.

A Tesla Supercharging station in the Bay Area was recently targeted by vandals who severed the charging cord from every stall. A few days prior, 5 separate Supercharger locations were stripped in Houston, TX. In Fresno, CA, over 50 of the city’s 88 EV charging stations have been pillaged – some multiple times.

Since the start of 2024, hundreds of Level 2 (L2) and DC fast charging (DCFC) stalls across the United States have been targeted by scalpers and vandals. Historically, a good deal of committed vandalism against EVs and chargers due to their anti-EV beliefs or some personal vendetta. But more frequently, thieves are looking to make a quick buck by nabbing the copper material used in cable wiring.

The scrapped metal is then sold to recyclers, who pay pennies on the dollar for the raw materials. For a haul that might net criminals $50 at most, the damage often costs cities and charging operators thousands to source and install new charging cords. Of course, it's not just about the financial cost. This damage causes major headaches for EV drivers just trying to get to their next destination.

Over the past few days, Tesla Superchargers in Houston, TX have been targeted multiple times. As reported by KPRC in Houston, 5 separate supercharging sites were hit over the past two weeks, disrupting the charging situation in the Texas city. Thankfully, Tesla was quick to jump on the situation and notified drivers to avoid the stations as repairs got underway.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/video/aut...-station-in-california/vi-BB1mrcNT?ocid=hpmsn
A similar situation has occurred in the Bay Area over the past few days. In a recent video posted by TikTok user k9optima, every charging cord at this station in Vallejo, CA station was severed.

It’s not just Superchargers that are being targeted, of course. Brand-new installations from Puget Sound Energy (PSE) in Sumner, WA have been hit not once, but twice since being installed at the start of the year.

In an interview with KING 5 Seattle, property owner Dave Radcliffe spoke with reporters about how he was happy to play host to the new chargers. But just one week after the ribbon-cutting event was held, local criminals held a cable-cutting event. A month after being repaired, the stations were hit yet again.

“Unfortunately, things like this continue to happen.” Mr. Radcliffe told KING 5 Seattle. He explained their plans to discourage further vandalism in the future by installing large 8-foot tall lights and upping security. “I’m going to provide more security, we’re going to have a direct camera on this area.”

While EV chargers are just the latest target for scalpers, wire theft has been an issue for decades. Everything from extension cords to fiber optic cables and phone lines is fair game.

According to the Washington State Department of Transportation, wire theft has cost taxpayers $1.5 million just since 2021 on public property alone. The city of Minneapolis, MN said 2023 was the single most challenging year for combating wire theft. Last year began with thieves pulling the copper wires from streetlights in Minneapolis, and thankfully several of them have been caught. But by the end of the year, EV chargers started becoming a prime target.

The City of Fresno, CA is taking a drastic response to the rampant vandalism in its city. Of the 88 L2 and DCFC units installed by the city, 50 have been recently vandalized.

The city is installing new custom cabinets around each of the vandalized units and locking them in off-peak hours. "We do not repair the ones that have been damaged until the steel cabinet has been installed.” Parking division manager Melissa Alaguer told ABC 30 Action News. “And then we repair them, but in addition to that, we have also increased our security."

The cost of the custom cabinets and their installation for all 88 charging stations will be around $176,000. Whereas the materials from all 88 stations combined would probably be worth only $500-$750.

One of the main reasons electric vehicle stations might be targeted is due to their locations. Chargers are typically installed in areas with convenient public access. Such as shopping centers, college campuses, big box retailers, drug stores, fast food restaurants, public parks, etc.

These areas have a lot of foot traffic during the day but are practically deserted at night. Having more chargers installed along major traffic arteries such along major highways might make them vulnerable. It would also help considerably if more units were installed under well-lit canopies, such as gas stations with 24-hour attendants.

We have seen these types of attacks and reported on them in the past. But their frequency is on the rise as more electric vehicle infrastructure is installed worldwide.

Still, sometimes the vandalism is not about the money at all. Property damage is also performed by petty, anti-EV actors all over the world just looking to make life more miserable for others. An individual in British Columbia, Canada dipped the charging plugs of a Tesla Supercharger in a sealant, which when dried rendered the station inoperable.

Last month, a Ford Ranger driver used a hammer to smash the stalls of a Tesla Supercharger station in Taupo, New Zealand. Thankfully, he lingered too long at the site and was arrested. Hopefully with more increased security, lighting and cameras at public charging sites means more criminals like this will be brought to justice.
 

teamzr1

Supporting vendor
GM UNPLUGGING ITS EV FUTURE?
MOST GM JOB CUTS COME FROM GM'S EV DIVISION CALLED ULTIUM AND NOT ALL ARE SOFTWARE DEVELOPERS - SOME ARE ENGINEERS!

MDCR can confirm that GM may have said that their latest round of white-collar job cuts are to their "software and service" employees, but that's not exactly true.
The layoffs come from GM's Ultium division, which is the sub-EV company GM created to differentiate it from its gasoline engine department.
I can confirm that thermal engineers, who work on battery programs in Ultium have been let go from the company, without warning.

Thermal Engineers play an important part in the development of EV's because thermal management involves the cooling of batteries, power electronic systems, and the motor.
So, with news confirmed that GM has slashed its Ultium EV battery division, is it safe to say that the company now realizes that the future of GM isn't electric, and they are pulling the plug and drastically reducing R&D on future EV's?
 

Roscobbc

Moderator
Logic seems that major, leading car manufacturers are actually seeing the wood from the trees and realising that with the ever increasing numbers of imports and the rapidly improving (and in many cases superior) technology of manufacturers in countries that were only a few year ago producing poor quality products.
The real issue for the USA and Europe is remaining competitive. They will have to cut wages. Union strength will no doubt help to fend that off.......but for how long? - ordinary everyday cars made in the USA and Europe will end up simply being uncompetitive. Ford USA has the right idea (as I suspect do Ford Europe) - just manufacture 'niche' market cars and commercial vehicles. GM presumably will follow.........it'll take a few years for the third world manufacturers to catch-up........but they will.......
 

teamzr1

Supporting vendor
Astonishingly, 57 Rivian electric vehicles (EVs) burst into flames at the company's manufacturing facility in Normal, Illinois, igniting serious concerns over the safety and reliability of electric vehicles, particularly those backed by taxpayer funding.

The unfortunate incident occurred on Saturday, attracting significant attention as the blaze engulfed the parking lot without causing injuries to employees or firefighters.
However, the implications of this disaster resonate beyond this specific event.

As Americans increasingly consider transitioning to EVs, such incidents raise major questions about the safety protocols in place at these manufacturing plants and the overall viability of electric vehicles as a solution to our transportation needs.
Rivian, a startup touted as a leader in the electric vehicle space, has been the recipient of hefty taxpayer subsidies, highlighting an unfortunate reality: our hard-earned money is funneling into a company that is now facing severe criticism for its operational safety standards.

Witnesses reported dramatic scenes of flames and smoke visibly rising from the site, while Rivian spokespersons remained vague about the extent of the damage, emphasizing that the assembly plant itself was not affected.
This incident should serve as a wake-up call regarding the potential dangers associated with the lithium-ion battery technology at the heart of electric vehicles.

With the rapid growth in EV sales, it's crucial to consider how fire risks can not only affect vehicle owners but also first responders who may not have the necessary resources or training to deal with battery fires effectively.
Moreover, as reports indicate that EV-related fires have already claimed lives and caused serious injuries in various states, the dire need for stricter safety regulations is evident.

As Republicans fight for sensible energy policies that prioritize both safety and economic prudence, this incident with Rivian serves as a timely reminder against hasty transitions driven by political agendas rather than sound logic.
It's essential for the American public to remain informed about such incidents, ensuring that we collectively demand accountability from companies that play with our taxpayer dollars and the safety of lives.

It is time to reassess support for EV initiatives that could put our safety at risk, proving that a smarter energy future must be built on solid technology, rigorous safety standards, and responsibility.
 

teamzr1

Supporting vendor
**Deception Unmasked: Electric Vehicles Not as 'Green' as Advertised**

The Biden-Harris administration is facing mounting scrutiny over misleading claims regarding electric vehicles (EVs) being "zero-emission."
In a striking letter to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), four Republican senators, led by Joni Ernst of Iowa, are urging action to prevent automakers from making unsubstantiated claims about the environmental impact of EVs.

Ernst, along with Senators Mike Crapo, Kevin Cramer, and Pete Ricketts, pointed out that while EVs produce no emissions during operation, this does not account for the substantial environmental costs incurred during their production and power sourcing.
The senators highlighted that the electricity powering these vehicles often comes from fossil fuels like natural gas and coal, undermining the claim of them being "zero-emission."

Additionally, they referenced a study from MIT revealing a staggering amount of carbon dioxide emitted during the mining of lithium - a critical mineral for EV batteries.
The data suggests that producing just one ton of lithium generates approximately 15 tons of carbon dioxide, raising serious questions about the overall environmental benefits of EV technology.

As the Biden administration continues to champion EVs as part of its green agenda, the reality on the ground shows that the lifecycle emissions of these vehicles can actually exceed those of traditional gasoline-powered cars.
Republicans are calling for transparency in advertising practices, asserting that consumers deserve the truth about the emissions generated throughout an EV's lifecycle.

Ernst emphasized the need for accountability, stating, "An EV is only emission-free when it runs out of battery on the side of the road."
The senators' letter underscores a growing frustration among lawmakers regarding the administration's approach to energy and climate policy, as the push for EV adoption encounters reality checks regarding infrastructure and consumer demand.

With the call for truth coming from Republican leaders, it remains to be seen how the administration will address these pressing concerns about the environmental integrity of its bold EV initiatives.
 

teamzr1

Supporting vendor
The Swedish car giant Volvo has become the latest automaker to scrap their electric vehicle (EV) production targets, citing a decrease in overall demand.
In a statement on Wednesday, company CEO Jim Rown admitted that customers are not ready to switch just yet and that many still prefer gas or diesel powered vehicles.

“We are resolute in our belief that our future is electric,” he said. “However, it is clear that the transition to electrification will not be linear, and customers and markets are moving at different speeds of adoption.”
The company, which is majority-owned by China’s Geely Holding, is also bracing for the effects of European tariffs on electric cars made in China.

The decision to scale back its ambitions comes three years after they announced plans to go fully electric by 2030.
Instead, they are now aiming for between 90 and 100 percent of sales o be fully electric or plug-in hybrid models by the end of the decade.

The Chinese-owned automaker said that its new target would also allow for up to 10 percent of its sales to include a limited number of so-called mild hybrid models if needed.
Volvo becomes merely the latest automaker to delay their transition to electric.

Ford recently delayed the release of its highly anticipated three-row electric SUV to 2027 and reduced its EV investment by $12 billion, citing slower-than-expected demand and the need to focus on profitable production .

Similarly, General Motors has halved its EV production target, now aiming to produce only 200,000 EVs by mid-2024 instead of the originally planned 400,000.

Volkswagen also scaled back plans to build six global battery factories, while Mercedes-Benz, once committed to being fully electric by 2025, has also pushed back this rollout.

The Biden regime is determined to force Americans to swallow their radical “climate change” agenda by any means necessary.

FOX News revealed that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) will announce the most restrictive standards in American history on gas-powered cars. The regulations will specifically target tailpipe emissions.
Under this plan, all Americans will likely be forced to buy electric vehicles, which is exactly what Biden wants.

The Biden administration is weighing an aggressive proposal to implement the tightest-ever federal regulations governing tailpipe emissions in an effort to boost electric vehicles.

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is expected to announce the new standards, which will impact cars manufactured between 2027-2032, next week during a ceremony in Detroit, Bloomberg reported on Thursday, citing officials briefed on the proposal.
In a statement, the EPA confirmed the standards are designed to incentivize consumers to purchase electric vehicles (EV).

“As directed by the President in an executive order, the EPA is developing new standards that will build on this historic progress and support the transition to a zero-emissions transportation future, lowering costs for consumers, and protecting people and the planet,” the agency’s statement continued. “Because they are currently under interagency review, EPA cannot comment further on the rules.”

The proposal next week is set to be introduced as the Biden administration continues its aggressive push for more Americans to switch to EVs and to electrify home appliances in an effort to combat global warming.

“The future of the auto industry is electric,” Biden remarked during a visit to a Ford EV center in Michigan early in his presidency.
“There’s no turning back.”
Americans will be forced to pay more for an inferior product they clearly do not want.
In addition to their efforts to ban gas-powered vehicles, the Regime previously admitted they want to ban “some” gas stoves and incandescent light bulbs.
Meanwhile, the Regime and their elitist allies enjoy the fruits of products made by gasoline. Rules are only for the little people, you see.
 

Roscobbc

Moderator
Americans will be forced to pay more for an inferior product they clearly do not want.
As will the British - did anyone see the Channel 5 TV show tonight (at 8.00pm)

Petrol vs Electric Cars: Which is Better?​

Total one-sided show about how cheap electric cars are to run and their superior performance (comparing two top-end Mercs, one a £90K C 63 and the other an electric equivalent - presumably a £150K EQS580) - got to watch for the obvious omissions! - was this show funded by the motor industry or HMG?
 

CaptainK

CCCUK Member
I didn't watch it, but heard about it. You just knew anything that was going to be on TV would be completely biased. TV presenters and so forth need funding, and bad mouthing the government and car producers with the truth about anything is just gonna get their funding reduced / removed. So just tag the company line.
 

Mad4slalom

Well-known user
As will the British - did anyone see the Channel 5 TV show tonight (at 8.00pm)

Petrol vs Electric Cars: Which is Better?​

Total one-sided show about how cheap electric cars are to run and their superior performance (comparing two top-end Mercs, one a £90K C 63 and the other an electric equivalent - presumably a £150K EQS580) - got to watch for the obvious omissions! - was this show funded by the motor industry or HMG?
As soon as I saw the title I suspected it may be a bit biased. Just like any vehicle fire isnt mentioned when an ev involved but widely reported if an ice .
 

Vetman

CCCUK Member
As will the British - did anyone see the Channel 5 TV show tonight (at 8.00pm)

Petrol vs Electric Cars: Which is Better?​

Total one-sided show about how cheap electric cars are to run and their superior performance (comparing two top-end Mercs, one a £90K C 63 and the other an electric equivalent - presumably a £150K EQS580) - got to watch for the obvious omissions! - was this show funded by the motor industry or HMG?
In addition, no mention of high repair cost, high insurance costs, and they thought the very high depreciation in value was a plus for someone buying a second hand EV.
 

teamzr1

Supporting vendor
For EV drivers traversing the great state of Wyoming, the Smith’s grocery store in Rock Springs is an oasis. It’s just off Interstate 80, there’s a Petco across the street, and it has six plugs promising to charge at 350 kilowatts.
At that rate, a Tesla Model 3 could go from empty to full in the time it takes to hit the bathroom and grab a Snickers.

But when I limped up to the station last month in a Rivian R1S crammed with one dog and two kids, that 350 kW may as well have been a mirage. Rivian’s SUV charges at 220 kW at best, and the charger itself crimped the hose to just 50 kW.

With one pit stop, our carefully planned seven-hour road trip got two hours longer.

This isn’t a Wyoming-specific problem, or a Rivian one. At U.S. public stations promising charging speeds of 100 kW or higher, the average delivered charge was only 52 kW in 2022, according to Stable Auto, which helps networks decide where to build new infrastructure. That disconnect - largely a reflection of battery power’s idiosyncrasies - is leaving many US drivers guessing as to when, why and by how much their charge is being throttled.

“The reality is we really don’t have a fast-charging infrastructure today,” says David Slutzky, chairman and founder of Fermata Energy, a startup that builds vehicle-to-grid charging systems. “They almost all ratchet down the charge pretty quickly.”

There are many good reasons why even the slickest public chargers rarely run at maximum capacity.
The chemical wizardry of battery power is more complex than pouring liquid in a tank, and both internal and external factors take a toll on charging speed.

For starters, an EV itself can only suck up electrons so quickly. Of the 55 electric models now available in the U.S., half charge above 200 kW and only five can charge at 350 kW. Those speeds are further compromised when it’s very hot or very cold. Temperature extremes can damage a lithium-ion battery, so automakers program their cars to slow a charge in certain temperatures.

Trickier still, EV charging slows naturally as the car’s battery approaches full, in order to keep it from overheating. (Smartphones and laptops do the same thing.) The specifics of this charging curve are unique to each car, though brands are cagey about sharing those specifics, even with the people buying their products. Tesla vehicles, for one, have relatively steep charging curves, meaning the “fast” part of the charging doesn’t last long.

Finally, charging networks themselves crimp electron flow.
On a hot day, the local grid might be maxed out by thirsty air conditioners, or the plugs’ hoses may be close to overheating. Many stations split power between cars, allowing them to install more cords with the same electricity. In other words, a 200 kW charger becomes a 100 kW charger when someone uses its second cord. (The U.S. Department of Energy classifies plugs 50 kW and up as “fast.”)

“There’s sort of this complicated handshake between the vehicle and the charger, so I think there’s an education gap for sure,” says Sara Rafalson, executive director of policy at EVgo.

That gap risks hurting EV adoption in the U.S., where charging speed has become a marketing metric. Automakers like to trumpet how quickly their cars can go from 10% or 20% full to 80%, while public charging stations tend to display maximum charge rate — not average or expected — right on the machines. Some 17% of U.S. public chargers are rated 100 kW-plus, according to BloombergNEF, compared with only 10% in the UK and 2% in the Netherlands.

“We still see a lot of discrepancies between what the customer is expecting and what they’re seeing at the site,” says Anthony Lambkin, vice president of operations at Electrify America, which operates almost 1,000 U.S. stations.
“The great news is we have a lot of new drivers, and this is just one of those learning-curve things.”

Consumers are a little less sanguine. One snapshot of 103,000 Tesla charging sessions found average charging speeds of only 90 kW less than half of the maximum, according to Recurrent Auto, a startup that tracks battery health.
And in a recent JD Power survey, EV owners scored public charging speeds near the bottom of 10 categories studied. Brent Gruber, executive director of JD Power’s EV practice, says consumers develop false expectations “when you plaster those [kilowatt] numbers on the charger itself.”

Charging executives concede that they could do more to educate consumers, particularly those new to electric cars. “That is still a challenge,” Lambkin says. “But there’s a real tech aspect to this that seems to draw people in. People get very, very excited when they see that they’re getting their maximum charge rate.”

Charging’s inherent complexity means the speed gap will never close entirely, but it should narrow in the near future. Charging networks are building faster and larger stations in the U.S., which will ease the need for power dilution across plugs. Since the end of 2022, every station built by Electrify America has been capable of 350 kW, and a couple of its sites now have 20 charging slots.

Carmakers have also realized that max charging rate is a deciding factor for car buyers, and are dialing it up on coming models.
“There will be a catch-up on the technology side that should meet that catch-up on the learning-curve side,” Lambkin says.

But for the time being, the best way to cope with the unpredictability is to prepare for it, sometimes doggedly. Before Jacob Espinoza sets off on any road trip from his home in New Mexico, he goes through a three-part checklist:
Plug his destination into a route-planning app; check the charging network apps; and check Plugshare, a platform for crowdsourced charger reviews.

“When you do those three things, it’s really not that hard to take long trips in an EV,” says Espinoza, who chronicles his battery-powered road trips on YouTube.

Back in Rock Springs, I was paying the price for having skipped Espinoza’s steps two and three. After about 15 minutes of 50 kW charging, we cut our losses and drove another 100 miles north to Pinedale, Wyoming, where two cords idled in a dusty lot behind Stockman’s Saloon and Steakhouse. The “Frontier Days” festival was in town, so we wandered by to catch a folk concert.

With a maximum charging speed of 120 kW, the Pinedale plug should have been far slower than our 350 kW machine in Rock Springs. But we only had 90 miles to go, and it covered that in just a few minutes. Frontier days, indeed.
 

Roscobbc

Moderator
Guessing here in the UK with average mileage and really long journeys perhaps significantly less than in the USA we'll see a scaled down version of those charge rate limitations.......however the real worry for many early adopters of electric vehicles (given the government 'incentives' they were give to buy an electric vehicle) is the looming threat of 'pay per mile' charges, initially to 'claw back' some of HMG's losses from the 'early' electric car adopters who would have avoided annual road tax and fuel duty. Wonder when the government will try to increase home charging costs......?
The new Labour government are alienating many sections of society after only a few months in power........
 
Last edited:

teamzr1

Supporting vendor
The Italian government led by Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni walks a fine line between Globalism and its conservative DNA.
But now and then the Italians break rank with the wider European thought to take a more principled stand, as it appear to be the vase now.
It arises that Italy has now called for a review of the European Union’s 2035 petrol car ban, amid fears it risked triggering the industry’s ‘collapse’.
This comes as it appears the EV fad has faded, and buyers are starting to reject electric vehicles ‘en masse’.

Telegraph reported:

“Ministers from Giorgia Meloni’s government claimed the “absurd” policy was ideologically driven and required change to reflect the realities of the market. There has been growing unease across the Continent about a slowdown in demand for electric vehicles (EVs).”

Besides this trend, there’s also widespread concern that Europe’s car industry may be falling behind manufacturers in China and the US.
Just last week, industry leader Volkswagen warned it may close factories in Germany for the first time.
The car giant suffers from high energy prices.

This has led many to call for ‘a rethink’ of EU ‘green’ climate goals, which ended up enacting a ban on internal combustion engine cars by 2035.

“Gilberto Pichetto Fratin, the Italian energy minister, told Bloomberg: ‘The ban must be changed’.
Adolfo Urso, the industry minister, added: ‘In an uncertain landscape, which is affecting the German automotive industry, clarity is needed to not let the European industry collapse. Europe needs a pragmatic vision, the ideological vision has failed. We need to acknowledge that’.”


Urso has called for the conversion targets to be reviewed early by the European Commission.
All the while, Italy is saying that it is not opposed to EVs, but the country argues that the ‘transition to clean energy’ should also involve other technologies.

“Meanwhile, Volkswagen – Germany’s largest industrial employer and Europe’s top carmaker by revenue, has been hammered by rising power prices after the loss of cheap Russian gas in the wake of the invasion of Ukraine. The company has also been struggling with its push into electric cars.

Sales of EVs stalled in the first half of the year, and the company delayed the US launch of its latest electric sedans indefinitely.”

This all happens in the context of a worsening outlook for Germany’s economy, with its manufacturing sector suffering greatly.
 

phild

CCCUK Member
Can you really see Starmer and his mob ever seeing sense?

Sense, common or not, is an attribute rarely seen in politicians these days in any party, Starmers lot seem to be particularly lacking. :rolleyes:
There does seem to be increasing investment in hydrogen technology both for fuel cells and conversion of existing ICE vehicles. Seems a far more sensible solution than scrapping perfectly good vehicles. We shall just have to wait and see.
 
Top