Chevy Bolt EV Forum banner

481 - 500 of 518 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,622 Posts
Interesting point.
If CO2 was your primary concern and motivation, it would make perfect sense for the governments in northern states to pay Arizona or other sunshine states to install solar panels there instead of subsidizing inefficient panels in the north. Unless CO2 reduction wasn't really your motivation. :unsure:
I corrected my sentence after reading your quotation... but you got my point.

Initially I had come upon this realization by asking myself how I would maximize my return on investment if I were installing solar myself. My conclusion was that since the cost of installation is roughly the same regardless of where I install, I could generate more electricity in Phoenix than in rainy northern Oregon. Not only that, but electricity is cheaper (less valuable) up here. If I installed the panels on someone's house in Phoenix, I could offer them reduced rates for the generated electricity while still coming out ahead since that location would produce way more electricity than I could otherwise achieve up here.

Most programs when evaluated for cost/benefit show either ignorance or corruption. Whenever a decision is made, it forfeits all other potentially better decisions (opportunity cost). Hanlon's Razor says ""never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity", but we see many examples of ideas that on the surface would appear to be beneficial, but either deliver very little in return, or worse, are counterproductive to their original intent.

The $7,500 federal tax credit for EVs comes to mind. Once a manufacturer runs out of credits, it places them at a $7,500 disadvantage to their competitors. How about EV's in the HOV lane? We are placing the most efficient vehicles into the most efficient lane of travel. EVs in particular excel at stop and go driving, but we place semis, dump trucks, and other heavy inefficient vehicles in the stop and go lane and send the EVs on their way. Did we reduce CO2? Is anyone asking that question? That's why we're creating the programs, right?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,519 Posts
Oh, I get the flawed reasoning. People are more concerned with feeling like they've done good without caring if good was actually done, or performing any sort of cost/benefit analysis. Better to have a facade of virtue than to be virtuous, because it's way easier, and keeps the angry (and hypocritical) mob away for another day.
It is also way easier to do it with other peoples money :D

Spending tax money to make yourself look good to environmental groups is a win win for politicians. Anyone who questions this kind of spending is an evil person **** bent on ruining the environment, so you can't be criticized... perfect situation for a person running for re-election. The idea that this is political payoff's to campaign donors (real reason for pro OR anti green policy) is beside the point :)

Keith
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
490 Posts
As @Sean Nelson noted below, I think you're missing what most of us here are referring to. The silence in certain EV media circles right now is deafening. As @TheLondonBroiler noted, it isn't due to a lack of knowledge. This is a purposeful choice. I've also experienced that treatment myself. I was approached by a writer for CleanTechnica when I recreated the seminal single-charge trip from "Los Angeles" to Las Vegas in Elon's personal Model S 85 using my 2017 Chevy Bolt EV, but after speaking with his editor, the interview/story was never published.

The gist I'm getting is even IEVs was reluctant (or at least some contributors at IEVs are, anyway) to Kyle publishing this story. Out of Spec Motoring is too big to ignore at this point, and his affiliation with IEVs got this story pushed through. I have doubts whether even IEVs would have published the story without Kyle's influence.
Complaining about media bias... interesting... :unsure:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
359 Posts
Complaining about media bias... interesting... :unsure:
It seems to me that there are swooning articles about all things tesla and not that much with other brands.
Do you ever see this, J?
I'm not saying these other EV brands are direct competitors, but they are functionally close, and cost 2 - 3 times less.

And I am saying that maybe it has something to do with personal interests, if their investments are rising on this current crazy train. :unsure:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,519 Posts
I wonder how the tech and EV reporting communities are going to deal with the EV Cannonball run record being set with a CCS Vehicle, charging exclusively on Electrify America?

Keith

PS: Love that this discussion ranging from environmental politics to Tesla vs everyone else has remained for the most part friendly and respectful.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,862 Posts
{...} but we see many examples of ideas that on the surface would appear to be beneficial, but either deliver very little in return, or worse, are counterproductive to their original intent.

The $7,500 federal tax credit for EVs comes to mind. Once a manufacturer runs out of credits, it places them at a $7,500 disadvantage to their competitors. How about EV's in the HOV lane? We are placing the most efficient vehicles into the most efficient lane of travel. EVs in particular excel at stop and go driving, but we place semis, dump trucks, and other heavy inefficient vehicles in the stop and go lane and send the EVs on their way. Did we reduce CO2? Is anyone asking that question? That's why we're creating the programs, right?
The original idea (in Calif) was to encourage people to buy vehicles that pollute less - and it worked. I know several people that went out and immediately bought plug-in hybrids when that law required them, just so that they could cut 30 minutes off their commute each way.

That isn't really necessary anymore - people are buying EVs anyhow. I have long (well, since 2017) been an advocate of changing the HOV and High-Occupancy Toll (HOT) lane law(s) so that :

1- a "non-polluting vehicle" gets a "1-person bonus" when calculating "people in the car" (but with a minimum of 2 physical people required in the car when in the lane). So an EV with 2 people would meet the requirement for a 3-person HOV lane (and there are such lanes in the SF Bay area and in Los Angeles county - probably elsewhere as well).

2- "people" would be redefined as "people with a drivers license". People without a drivers license would count as half a person. So somebody driving one kid to soccer practice or back from school couldn't use the lane.

Changing the law in this fashion would still encourage people to buy non-polluting vehicles, AND to carpool, both of which would reduce pollution in high-density urban areas. It would also reduce the number of vehicles in the carpool lanes and on the roadways in general, speeding travel when using said lanes. I used to carpool when I drove to work (a guy who worked one floor below me was literally one block off my regular drive to work).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
490 Posts
1- a "non-polluting vehicle" gets a "1-person bonus" when calculating "people in the car" (but with a minimum of 2 physical people required in the car when in the lane). So an EV with 2 people would meet the requirement for a 3-person HOV lane (and there are such lanes in the SF Bay area and in Los Angeles county - probably elsewhere as well).
I think the first question to ask is what's the purpose of the HOV lane? Is it to reduce emissions? Is it to reduce traffic? Both? If to reduce traffic, it has proven to have very little positive effect and in many cases some negative effect, depending on how bad the overall traffic is. So if we focus on reduced emissions, I would argue that the EV should be given rights to the "HOV" lane at all times while the ICE vehicle suffers a penalty to the number of people required. After all, an ICE with 4 people in it reduces emissions to about 25% of what it would be while an EV reduces it to 0% (not counting electricity generation).
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
998 Posts
The original idea (in Calif) was to encourage people to buy vehicles that pollute less - and it worked. I know several people that went out and immediately bought plug-in hybrids when that law required them, just so that they could cut 30 minutes off their commute each way.

That isn't really necessary anymore - people are buying EVs anyhow. I have long (well, since 2017) been an advocate of changing the HOV and High-Occupancy Toll (HOT) lane law(s) so that :

1- a "non-polluting vehicle" gets a "1-person bonus" when calculating "people in the car" (but with a minimum of 2 physical people required in the car when in the lane). So an EV with 2 people would meet the requirement for a 3-person HOV lane (and there are such lanes in the SF Bay area and in Los Angeles county - probably elsewhere as well).

2- "people" would be redefined as "people with a drivers license". People without a drivers license would count as half a person. So somebody driving one kid to soccer practice or back from school couldn't use the lane.

Changing the law in this fashion would still encourage people to buy non-polluting vehicles, AND to carpool, both of which would reduce pollution in high-density urban areas. It would also reduce the number of vehicles in the carpool lanes and on the roadways in general, speeding travel when using said lanes. I used to carpool when I drove to work (a guy who worked one floor below me was literally one block off my regular drive to work).
As EVs proliferate, these HOV lanes will get congested.

When that time comes, reverse the game. Make ICE and SOVs use the current HOV lanes, and prohibit them from using the rest of the lanes. It will bog them down so much they will have to give serious consideration to EV and carpooling.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,862 Posts
I think the first question to ask is what's the purpose of the HOV lane? Is it to reduce emissions? Is it to reduce traffic? Both? If to reduce traffic, it has proven to have very little positive effect and in many cases some negative effect, depending on how bad the overall traffic is. So if we focus on reduced emissions, I would argue that the EV should be given rights to the "HOV" lane at all times while the ICE vehicle suffers a penalty to the number of people required. After all, an ICE with 4 people in it reduces emissions to about 25% of what it would be while an EV reduces it to 0% (not counting electricity generation).
As EVs proliferate, these HOV lanes will get congested.

When that time comes, reverse the game. Make ICE and SOVs use the current HOV lanes, and prohibit them from using the rest of the lanes. It will bog them down so much they will have to give serious consideration to EV and carpooling.
In the SF Bay area, the HOV lanes are already congested - they are scarcely faster than the other lanes during rush hour. There are way too many single-driver cars (EVs).

The purpose of HOV lanes is to reduce traffic AND to reduce pollution. It offers a benefit to sharing your vehicle, reducing pollution AND the number of cars on the road. Google (and Apple, and other large tech corporations in the area) have done a wonderful job by providing shuttle busses at certain locations. One drives to a spot on the "outside" of congestion, parks one's vehicle, and climbs aboard a large bus that is full and replaces 25-45 cars on the road with one bus. It's really a shame that there aren't more cost-effective plugin hybrid busses on the road.
 

·
Registered
2017 Bolt Premier
Joined
·
384 Posts
In the SF Bay area, the HOV lanes are already congested - they are scarcely faster than the other lanes during rush hour. There are way too many single-driver cars (EVs).

The purpose of HOV lanes is to reduce traffic AND to reduce pollution. It offers a benefit to sharing your vehicle, reducing pollution AND the number of cars on the road. Google (and Apple, and other large tech corporations in the area) have done a wonderful job by providing shuttle busses at certain locations. One drives to a spot on the "outside" of congestion, parks one's vehicle, and climbs aboard a large bus that is full and replaces 25-45 cars on the road with one bus. It's really a shame that there aren't more cost-effective plugin hybrid busses on the road.
Beyond that, the HOV lanes are often usable for a fee in the Bay Area and LA (and probably elsewhere), which further dilutes the value and clogs them. As mentioned previously, drives into SF often find me sitting in the HOV lane watching all the other lanes moving faster.
 

·
Registered
2017 Bolt EV LT purchased used, previous vehicle was a 2015 Chevy eSpark
Joined
·
176 Posts
In the SF Bay area, the HOV lanes are already congested - they are scarcely faster than the other lanes during rush hour. There are way too many single-driver cars (EVs).

The purpose of HOV lanes is to reduce traffic AND to reduce pollution. It offers a benefit to sharing your vehicle, reducing pollution AND the number of cars on the road. Google (and Apple, and other large tech corporations in the area) have done a wonderful job by providing shuttle busses at certain locations. One drives to a spot on the "outside" of congestion, parks one's vehicle, and climbs aboard a large bus that is full and replaces 25-45 cars on the road with one bus. It's really a shame that there aren't more cost-effective plugin hybrid busses on the road.
I would like to point out that the best way to reduce traffic isn't with HOV lanes, it's with comprehensive public transit, cycle and walking paths. Most critically though, ending the Ponsi scheme that is the suburban expanse. That right there will do a lot. . .


EDIT: I just want this on the record. The HOV lane was intended to reduce traffic- but those lanes fundamentally do not work.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,519 Posts
I would like to point out that the best way to reduce traffic isn't with HOV lanes, it's with comprehensive public transit, cycle and walking paths. Most critically though, ending the Ponsi scheme that is the suburban expanse. That right there will do a lot. . .


EDIT: I just want this on the record. The HOV lane was intended to reduce traffic- but those lanes fundamentally do not work.
The best way to reduce pollution (and traffic) is $10 a gallon gasoline.

Keith
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
359 Posts
.... Lot's of predictable and unpredictable consequences would follow.
Less pleasure driving for the middle and lower classes.
Your $1 burger may now be a $1.25 burger. Cost of eggs and milk go up a few %.
Skys get clearer.
What else?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
490 Posts
Less pleasure driving for the middle and lower classes.
Your $1 burger may now be a $1.25 burger. Cost of eggs and milk go up a few %.
Skys get clearer.
What else?
Just for starters, the lower classes spend a far larger percentage of their income on fuel. They also are least able to afford to live near where they work and less likely to be able to afford a newer EV. So you are placing the greatest burden on them. Some may have to quit their jobs located far from their lower cost housing. And lot's of other domino effects and unpredictable consequences will follow, just on that one aspect.

Ideas like this often create more problems than they solve, which is what the politician want because they get to once again claim that if you vote for them, they will fix the problems.

P.S. I know it's well-meaning and I truly believe that, with few exceptions, we all want what works out best for everyone. But still, **** is paved with good intentions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
359 Posts
..... we all want what works out best for everyone. But still, **** is paved with good intentions.
Thank goodness for good intentions!
You have to question the first part of the above, though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
490 Posts
I love how the yellow vests are such a great example of good intentions and unpredictable consequences.
In case you didn't know: "All drivers in France have to carry the jackets in their cars as part of safety equipment for use in a breakdown."

Really top-notch good intentions that nobody should be opposed to. I wonder if at the time there was anyone who said "Hmm... this could result in giving an antigovernmental movement an easy "uniform" for them to use."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,622 Posts
Slowly raising the tax on fuel would avoid the disruption caused by an instantaneous decision, like making fuel cost $10/gallon overnight. Something like 3% per year. All industries would respond to the inevitable enormous cost to consume fuel by prioritizing all decisions involving consumption of fuel.

I would like to point out that the best way to reduce traffic isn't with HOV lanes, it's with comprehensive public transit, cycle and walking paths. Most critically though, ending the Ponsi scheme that is the suburban expanse. That right there will do a lot. . .

EDIT: I just want this on the record. The HOV lane was intended to reduce traffic- but those lanes fundamentally do not work.
We're already well incentivised to do things like carpool, but people don't want to. Carpooling saves the cost of fuel, plus allows all passengers to do something other than pay attention to driving. It saves both time and money in that way, yet what percent of commuters carpool?

I had a coworker that drove his car the 3/4 mile he lived from work. Laziness. Many (most?) people default to what is most convenient to them.
 
481 - 500 of 518 Posts
Top