this post was submitted on 20 Feb 2024
141 points (90.3% liked)

Technology

59534 readers
3199 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Biden Administration Is Said to Slow Early Stage of Shift to Electric Cars::The change to planned rules was an election-year concession to labor unions and auto executives, according to people familiar with the plan.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] jmiller@lemm.ee 28 points 9 months ago (3 children)

They are too expensive. But only because auto manufacturers are only making midsized and larger suvs or luxury cars. The average price of an EV has dropped over 50% in China since 2015. That would have been tough for us to match, mostly because of batteries, but we could have made much more progress than we have.

The electric grid isn't nearly as unprepared as people say. Sure, we need to build out more charging stations, but the grid as a whole far exceeds current needs. In fact, nationwide electrical usage is actually trending down in the US because of efficiency gains. Better building codes, heat pumps, LED lighting, if it uses electricity newer stuff is more efficient. If we had sold 8 times as many EVs in 2023 than we did, electricity usage would have stayed about flat.

https://cleantechnica.com/2024/02/02/the-us-added-1-2-million-evs-to-the-grid-last-year-electricity-use-went-down/

[–] cyd@lemmy.world 16 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Here's the story as I understand it. US automakers want to make expensive premium cars because those sell for high margins. The big breakthrough in the EV market over the past few years has been China EV makers figuring out how to make cheap and "good-enough" EVs, which are catching on in many places across the world. This is clearly the direction in which the market has to move (whether via Chinese or non-Chinese automakers) to spur mass EV adoption. In the US, however, the established automakers can rely on protectionism to block imports, this keeping the US market limited to big expensive cars that remain using ICEs.

[–] Tak@lemmy.ml 11 points 9 months ago (1 children)

It's really just a matter of time till Chinese manufacturers set up in Mexico and the US will have to accept Chinese EVs because of NAFTA. The US also has lots of range anxiety about EVs that I don't see as much in other markets. Being 120v and sprawling with limited government willingness to build infrastructure, with no requirements for rentals to add chargers makes a perfect storm for that fear.

[–] IncogCyberspaceUser@lemmy.world 8 points 9 months ago (2 children)
[–] Pika@sh.itjust.works 6 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

Last month, Tesla's chief executive predicted that Chinese automakers will "demolish" global rivals without trade barriers.

it sounds like maybe they should, idk? work on making their own garbage cheaper then? that soley sounds like a competition problem not a consumer problem. As long as the cars meet US safety standards for manufactoror I embrace the competition

[–] GiveMemes@jlai.lu 4 points 9 months ago

Billionaires love laissez-faire capitalism until it comes to bite them in the ass

[–] dragontamer@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

The geopolitical calculus here is about manufacturing.

If China owns EV production lines, that gives them the drone advantage in the next war, as the Li-ion battery is the hard thing to make in a drone.

If USA has EV lines, even if it's more expensive, we have the resources to make drones as well. (Or Li-ion batteries in other useful weapons).

Ceeding the military advantage to the Chinese for some cheap consumer goods is a bad tradeoff, especially as China is building a Navy to fight us in Taiwan.

[–] Tak@lemmy.ml 1 points 9 months ago

Li-ion cells, computers, solar panels... all of these are american inventions that capitalist entities moved to China to maximize profits.

[–] phillaholic@lemm.ee 1 points 9 months ago

Japan did it. Korea did it. China is doing it.

[–] circuitfarmer@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago

As a renter, I have no way to charge an electric car nightly. The availability of charging infrastructure outside of private homes will be more and more of an issue, unless battery tech significantly improves to be at parity with gas (e.g. I spend 10 minutes at a public charger as if I were filling a gas car).

[–] shalafi@lemmy.world 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (4 children)

You sound informed, more so than I. The heat pump thing confuses me, and I've seen it a lot lately.

I was under the impression that the vast majority of homes were using a heat pump system. Seems like a no-brainer? Is this not so?

EDIT: My HVAC is labelled a "heat pump" and no one around here had natural gas.

[–] Tak@lemmy.ml 4 points 9 months ago

It's technically a heat pump but it only cools and can't switch to heating the space. It's a fucked up way the American HVAC system has done things for decades.

[–] jmiller@lemm.ee 4 points 9 months ago

A increasing percentage of new construction gets heat pumps. Some replacement HVAC units make the switch, but there is still a large portion of people who won't because of misinformation and/or stubbornness.

But, unfortunately, most existing residential systems do not use heat pumps, under 20% in the US I believe.

[–] dragontamer@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago

No.

Typical gas / coal plants are ~40% efficient. That means that if you do natural gas -> electricity -> heat pump, you only have 40% of the energy available to you. Yes, Heat-pumps then multiply that 40% energy out into "energy movement" rather than heating, but its a huge efficiency break.

If you instead run a pipe from the central source of natural gas and then burn the natural gas inside of a home, you have something like 95% efficiency (5% lost in the chimney).


Its only in the most recent decades have heat pumps actually become more efficient than burning natural gas inside of homes, because you have to factor the inefficiency of the power plant in your conversion. So today we're finally in a position where modern, advanced, efficient heat pumps are worthwhile. But go back just 20 years ago and the math still pointed towards burning fuel inside of our homes as the most efficient solution.

[–] mosiacmango@lemm.ee 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Nope. Burning gas and direct electric heat of some sort are still the most prevalent forms of heating in the US, and often have separate cooling systems.

New building almost all use heat pumps because they are a no brainer, but a house built 60yr before the technology existed may still be using a very old heat source. Many people do not have the 20k+ to retrofit their current home with heat pump technology even if it can save hundreds/month on their power/gas bill,so here we are.

On the plus side, it is one of the lowest hanging fruits to reduce your bills long term, along with sealing drafts, insulation and replacing your water heater, so many people who have the means are opting to do all of the above.