AFAIK, doctors do get kick backs from pharma companies for prescribing their drugs. A lot more doctors' offices are adding integrated pharmacies and are benefiting directly from drug sales. Then of course there's getting one's patients addicted for more follow up doctors visits.

Facts vs confirmation bias. You were sure your point made sense and you even found an article written by an EV media writer (the bottom of the barrel in terms of journalism) that you believed backed it up. With scrutiny of the data in that article, it's quickly evident that it's not proving high take up rates of EVs in rural areas. Growing take up rates... sure... but if you sold one car last year and 3 this year, it's an amazing 200% growth rate... which is barely a scratch on the surface.

You seem upset that I called you out... ? 🤣 Heaven forbid I write more than a short one liner to show my intellectual superiority to others, and instead show actual thoughtful evidence and consideration to a topic.

Tthis is why misinformation spreads. People are so stinking lazy and refuse to look past their own biases and do actual research and fact checking before posting shit as if it's a fact.

Do research and stop talking out of your backside. It's good for ya.

>It's a bit of a silly question isn't it?

So yes... got it. At least you didn't back down from your silliness I guess.

I suggest you do some actual research...

https://afdc.energy.gov/data/10962#:~:text=This%20chart%20shows%20the%20vehicle,highest%20count%2C%20followed%20by%20Texas.

There's a reason your article didn't show absolute sales figures and only showed sales growth. Start with a tiny number in 2021 and triple it in 2022, and while the percentage growth will show 200%... there are still only a tiny number of sales in that state.

Your link suggests Mississippi saw a "HUGE" increase in Hybrid and EV adoption. Note that they didn't break out the Hybrids from the EVs.. and most people would consider "EVs" to represent the plug-in variety. Why is that?

Most EV sales in the US are in the wealthiest states in the US, as can be seen in my link above. California, Washington, Florida, New York, New Jersey, Illinois, and other wealthy coastal states. It also just so happens that most of these states are participating in the ZEV tradable credit program, and also offer state EV tax credits. The states with the most sales have also benefited the most from federal EV tax credit programs over the years; essentially transferring wealth from the entire US taxpayer base to those specific states.

It's a bit of a silly question isn't it?

Yes or no.

😉

Trying to sum up a complex situation with a single yes or no question isn't doing anyone favors. I never stated EVs weren't a better solution than doing literally nothing. I went into the details and grey areas that no one likes to think or talk about. I know... thinking hard... details hard. Me drive car fast. Me save / me don't care about environment.

When you delve into the details about where we need to go, and where we're going with the goal of reducing emissions, we're taking pretty much the worst and slowest direction we could possibly consider. And who are the main beneficiaries? Humanity, the planet, or a few corporations; including the oil and mining industries, and primarily one specific car company who's leading the way towards a subpar solution and being rewarded handsomely for it?

This is what happens when the corrupt government picks technological and corporate winners, rather than simply taxing that which is bad and letting the market resolve the issue. If long range BEVs are the best solution, the market will push for it. If PHEVs / HEVs are the best solution, the market will push for it. If bikes, working from home, and 4 day work weeks are the best solution, then the market will push for it.

But then what do you expect from government representatives whose campaigns are financed by corporations, who are constantly lobbied by those corporations who treat them as if they're 'great friends', who are allowed to freely trade stock on insider information, and who may be promised lucrative positions once they're out of office.

As if it wasn't obvious, corporate campaign financing and lobbyists have far more money in their coffers than organizations fighting for the environment and the little guys.

Could take it one step further and suggest that the real issue is greed, laziness, self-centeredness, apathy, entitlement, and lack of forethought. Once you give a person a toy, it's hard to convince them to give it up; especially for a less convenient form of transportation or a smaller house/yard, regardless of whether that alternative helps them/humanity overall or makes their lives better.

Making matters worse, the auto / mining / fuel industries are major global industries. For large regions to suggest we back away from cars instantly leads to lobbying efforts to stop all movement in that direction.

It is interesting that the proposition of creating the option for alternatives is often pushed back against by people in the communities; they simply don't want to pay for things they won't personally utilize, even if many people will utilize it, it'll improve the area, and over time it'll lead to densification around the routes over the coming decades. They don't want to deal with driving around bike lanes, watching out for bikers, less parking, or slower speed limits.

In pushing back, they not only stymie progress, they push the infrastructure in the wrong direction, further towards car centric infrastructure, making it more difficult to install public transit / bike lanes in the future, making it relatively more inconvenient for drivers.

On the plus side, there are 'some' solutions that car companies and communities are having a hard time pushing back against. Namely working from home... WFH was different than bike lanes / public transit in that suddenly a huge percentage of workers were effectively forced to work from home over an extended period of time. Society as a whole all experienced the benefits of working from home, and as a community there was a huge push to continue it.

What if everyone was suddenly told they couldn't drive anymore and had to commute by bike? Over that period, it would no longer be taboo, and people could get a taste of the experience and realize it's not as bad as they may have thought. No fear of cars running them over would be a big plus too.

Given that such a thing will never happen with alternative forms of transit, the only solution is for people to deal with the bullshit infrastructure setup for cars that's a deterrent to bikes / public transit and be a role model and lead by example. If more people do it, communities will think it less weird / inconvenient and be more willing to entertain it, and there will be more people to push our representatives to start expanding the necessary infrastructure.

We're still many many years away before any real pressure can build up, which is sad because if we really wanted to transition today, we could. Everyone could just stop driving, dust off their bikes and ride them, learn public transit routes and use them. Thus my original paragraph... the real issue is greed, laziness, self-centeredness, apathy, entitlement, and lack of forethought.

If emissions / cars are such a massive cataclysmic problem, why are we doing the bare minimum to deal with it?

First, the statistics you showed in your headline aren't representative of one another. ICEVs dropped in sales largely because overall auto demand dropped. Only in the last year or two did EV production and sales really pick up. Sure, those sales played a part in helping to reduce ICEVs, but we we still have a long way to go.

Second, EVs do still emit and pollute. We not only need to zero out our global emissions, but also sequester carbon in our atmosphere to get to where we need to be.

Third, the auto industry, lead by Tesla, is taking us down the slowest possible route if the goal is rapid emissions reduction... largely because of government corruption in the form of tax credits, tax abatements, other forms of direct funding and loans, and tradable (aka saleable) carbon credits. Lovingly referred to as "subsidies". Frankly, Tesla (spokescompany for EVs and leading EV producer) would have died without these subsidies, and even if they somehow managed to survive, they wouldn't be anywhere close to the dominant position they're in today. Their sales would likely be a fraction of where they're at. When I think of a realistic technology saving the day... I typically think of technologies that don't need all taxpayers footing the bill so some a-hole CEO at the top can suddenly amass so much wealth as to become the richest person on the planet...

We definitely have to get the 1.4 billion ICEVs off the roads as fast as possible and replace them with plug-in vehicles... or better yet, with alternative forms of transit... yet we're battery cell supply limited and choosing to use up most of those battery cell resources on long range BEVs. Essentially the slowest and least efficient way to rapidly reduce emissions. PHEVs and HEVs would be far quicker; but they're treated like the red headed stepchildren of the auto industry. Today, if we used all of the battery cells to produce only long range BEVs, we could produce 8.2 million long range BEVs per year. (Down from 10.6 million BEVs + PHEVs produced in 2022) If we used all the BEV cells instead to produce PHEVs, we could produce 36.5 million PHEVs and 45 million HEVs... with the same number of batteries. It could have completely removed new ICEV production from the equation last year..

As to what mrchaotica said... if rather than spending all our resources and time on plug-in EVs (aka more automobiles), we instead spent those resources on re-defining transportation by building the necessary infrastructure to reduce overall driving miles, we wouldn't even need to replace all the cars on the planet to rapidly reduce emissions. A PEV (e-bike, e-scooter, EUC, e-sk8) use a tiny percentage of the overall materials and battery cells of a plug-in electric car, especially long range BEVs, and use a tiny percentage of the energy per mile in comparison. If we really cared about rapidly reducing global emissions and pollution, there's your solution.

Less energy for transportation means all of the renewable energy we're producing on our grid can more quickly replace fossil fuel power plants, given that electricity demand wouldn't increase anywhere near as much as it is with needing to charging plug-in EVS every night that use over 6x as much energy to travel a mile.

Combine that with strategies like working from home, 4 day work weeks, lower highway speed limits to improve the efficiency of every car on the road, and carbon taxes to push people to lower their emissions, and we'd have a workable strategy that would be making huge impacts today. Instead we're putting all of our hopes and dreams on the sllloooowwww rollout and expansion of EV automobile production...

I'll tell you this much... at the rate we're going... it'll take a helluva long time to replace all 1.4 billion ICEVs on this planet with long range BEVs. Again, 8.2 million last year.... 1.392 billion ICEVs to go.

1 in 7 was only last year. In each previous year it was much less. So... the headline is just being silly to try and confuse readers into thinking the decline of ICE car sales is due to EVs.

Actualy, I didn't say anything about a license. I said one should have a registration and certification for their device.

Comparing a cell phone with a 10-20 Wh battery capacity and low fire potential, or a laptop with 50 - 150 Wh battery capacity and relatively low fire potential to PEVs with anywhere from 250 to 5000 Wh is a bit of an apples to oranges comparison. Not to mention that many PEVs aren't certified in any way, versus cell phones / laptops that often are.

Cell phones / laptops can definitely start on fire, but when they do, it's far more tame and more manageable to deal with. The smoke is toxic, the fire is hot, but the overall battery size is small enough where it can be handled.

Some examples:

https://youtu.be/O4AoI6W_F4Y?t=211

It's why batteries up to 100 Wh are allowed on planes. They're a bit PITA if they start on fire, but they likely won't kill anyone.

That isn't the case with a battery that's 10x-500x the capacity of a cell phone battery, or 2x-33x the size of a laptop battery.

If small e-bike batteries don't pose a serious threat, then maybe they don't need certification. However, given that a lot of people are buying PEVs with MUCH larger batteries, it becomes critical to ensure those battery cells, battery packs, monitoring systems, cooling systems, charging systems, and controllers are designed properly with low risk of fire.

Here's what a PEV fire with 2200 Wh battery looks like:

https://youtu.be/8h41p13e4TU?t=610

You gonna be the one to pick that up in the middle of your apartment or next to the door of your apartment and throw it in the tub? You gonna try to run past it? Pour some water on it? Think a fire extinguisher is gonna stop it? What they don't mention in this video is just how HOT lithium ion cells burn, making it easier to start things around it on fire. Making it harder to approach.

You'll note that the above fire wasn't caused by a failure in the cells; it was caused by a failure in the motherboard.

Here's the video of the PEV starting the grocery store on fire yesterday:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MY2JTlC_3Eg

Here's one with only a 650 Wh battery:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/mykajobdy7m9lh2/20180916_052136.mp4?dl=0

Here's one with a 3100 Wh battery... in a firesak. (Firesaks are only tested with batteries up to 2000 Wh)

https://youtu.be/WFLHCIbDJAw?t=943

(I'm posting EUCs because those are my PEVs of choice and I'd seen the videos already)

Actually, that last two remind me of an issue not often brought up. Laptops and cell phones are either often sealed against water ingress, or they're often tucked away from water. PEVs OTOH may not be certified against water, yet a lot of people ride them in the rain.

The 650 Wh case I believe he said he rode in the rain before experiencing electrical issues; this was an early model that they've since re-designed. In the 3100 Wh case... the guy accidentally dropped the EUC in water; says he dropped it in a pond. He thought it was fine because he took it apart, dried it out, and it was still operating properly; you can see him riding it just before the fire. Luckily he was smart enough to know that there was the potential for bad things to happen while charging, so they took it out to the middle of nowhere to charge it up. Imagine you live in an apartment with a neighbor living below you who isn't so smart.

The city council regulated battery sales within the city a few days ago:

https://www.westsidespirit.com/news/city-council-passes-bills-regulating-e-bike-batteries-IA2424684

I mean... did it smell delicious? An entire supermarket's worth of food just got cooked.

Legislation was just passed a few days ago that regulates battery sales in NYC, but that only applies to stores in the city AFAIK. There will still be people ordering batteries online or bringing them in from outside the city.

Registration / certification of the PEVs kills two birds with one stone. It ensures the battery packs / controllers being utilized are safe, and it tags the personal vehicle with a number that can be tracked if it breaks the law, making the owner liable.

Battery cells aren't the only cause of fires. There could be issues with motherboards/controllers starting on fire, motherboard / charger safeguards failing and causing a power surge to the battery. (each pack should have a fuse to protect against this.

IMO, all packs should have smart BMS built in with proper warnings for when cells aren't charging / balancing properly, or proper warnings for a thermal event. It'll cost more, but the more produced, the more they take advantage of economies of scale.

Even with all of these safeguards, battery cells can still fail and short out... for example if a dendrite pierces the cell separator and shorts out the cell or if the PEV was in an accident and there's no visually apparent damage. Until we have cells that are simply incapable of combusting, PEV batteries probably should be stored in a secure location, IMO. An apartment could build a safe storage locker, or maybe they only allow batteries of a certain size with the tenant proving they have a certified battery box / bag in the apartment that they're required to store their battery or PEV inside of that'll help to smother flames in the even of a fire. Probably wont' do anything about smoke though...

Something like this for small batteries:

https://firesak.com/

I personally own an EUC with a relatively small battery (1 kWH) as far as EUCs go, but I live in a house. A firesak would likely work for me, but I'm planning to build a battery box for it soon and in the event I buy a larger EUC in the future. Some EUCs have batteries as large as 3-4.5 kWh. Upwards of 40 lbs of cells packed tightly next to one another. You can't simply remove those packs, and there's no good way to safely contain those units inside an apartment. IMO, those units shouldn't be allowed in an apartment, no matter how well done the electronics are and battery packs were constructed. If a single goes into thermal runaway and that runaway spreads, it could create one helluva fire.

I don't see anything wrong with a PEV registration and license plate. It puts the onus on a single entity (the government) to verify that the PEV + battery is meeting safety regulations, and also allows for the tracking of PEVs when they break the law.

A PEV registration could be shown in businesses / offices / apartments to prove that the vehicle passed safety checks.

Not to mention the vast amount of space cars require for driving / parking.

Seems to me that a building burning out of control isn't only a result of what caused the fire. Battery fires are extremely hot, which can start surrounding things on fire pretty quickly, but the heat is within the proximity of the battery; so how come the fire spread so quickly throughout the entire building without any built in structure to help slow it down? Why were they allowing the e-scooter to be parked in what looks like the employee coat area anyways? If they built a secured outdoor bike area, preferably covered, then this could have been avoided.

IMO there needs to be more safe/secure storage sites for PEVs / batteries... like parking garages that take up a fraction of the space.

Because no one will buy 2x-3x priced laptop batteries in the airport convenience store. 🌩

🫰🫰

The amount of cholesterol? lol

That's not even half the story. How about international trade rules that were relaxed? How about much lower Chinese wages and worse worker protections (like working hours and overtime rules)? How about that 996 schedule that essentially allowed China to cut a shift at a 24 hour plant by making a 12 hour a day 6 days per week schedule standard practice? China was just one nation like this.

Large corporations, regardless of where they're headquarters were (many were in the US and considered American corporations) started moving production to low wage nations and exporting back into high wage nations to drive up their profits.

Apple is a shining example of this. Even to this day, look at how high the margins are on their hardware products, and that's AFTER Chinese wages have spent 20 years increasing. Look at Tesla, the first car company in China to start massive vehicle exports to the West, whose seem their profit margins jump since starting and expanding production there. (They export to Europe and other higher wage nations because at least Trump knew enough to stop Chinese vehicle imports with a new tariff). Now Biden is squashing any hope of vehicle imports from any low wage nation. (It looks like investors tried to circumvent the Chinese tariff by building factories in Vietnam...see Vinfast)

The US government all but guaranteed this eventuality with the relaxed trade rules (aka no tariffs in imports) back in 2000 and lack of investment at home. Why spend a billion on a new factory in the US, when instead we could experience years of high unemployment and pay out huge amounts for government assistance? Who pays for it? Corporations? Hah... No one pays (at least not right now)... we'll just grow our national debt!

Corporations couldn't have done a better job of enacting legislation to their own benefit if they governed the country themselves. They basically do through their massive lobbying efforts, campaign contributions, and promises of lucrative jobs after a politician is out office.

Per Capita emissions certainly matters, but how much? China's population is 4x larger than the US, and the country's total emissions make up 27% of global emissions versus 11% from the US. (If my quick Google search is correct)

Also remember that much of China's population is far poorer than in the US. It isn't that they don't want luxuries, it's that they can't afford them. Often because their labor is overworked and underpaid. Many of their industry workers are crammed into small apartments. Can you imagine the type of energy China would need if their citizens all had enough money to afford A/C, clothes dryers, personal vehicles, and more space in their homes?

Not saying North Americans don't need to live more frugally with little more than a minor inconvenience, but there's a pretty big difference in quality of life for the workers in each nation. In terms of which nation pays their workers a larger share of the revenue their products generate, that's clearly in favor of the US. It's no surprise that for-profit corporations would rather build manufacturing facilities in China than in the US and then export the products to Western nations using highly pollutive container ships. I'd be curious which country those shipping emissions get attributed to.

The solution to stop people from using all their money on things that drive up energy use has always been a carbon tax, but our politicians have failed to act. Probably because it would not only be unpopular, but it would force even more companies to send jobs to nations without those taxes. (As it they haven't already done so to a huge degree) Those emissions taxes would need to be setup in a way to impose a tariff on imported goods based on the emissions from production.