Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 40 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
More EV Woes
Electric vehicles completely replacing gasoline cars would burden our power grid to the breaking point, not to mention the added pollution to generate all that electricity. This is a huge problem we’re aware of. However, there’s another problem with EVs that I hadn’t thought about before (no big surprise, since I’ve given up thinking for Lent):
The added weight of EV batteries causes more road damage than gasoline powered cars. Of course, tractor-trailers are a big culprit too, but replacing all existing gasoline cars for electric would place a tremendous burden on our roads. We can barely keep or streets and highways pothole free now. Imagine a future where every road looks like a New Orleans street. (Those of us who went to the NOLA Meetup can attest to the state of their roads).
What if we could find a way to keep the roads repaired? Well, look at how traffic backs up with road repair today. Imagine doubling or tripling the number of work zones. You’d have streets and highways clogged more often than not.
I remember watching a video where the host discussed the additional number of fatalities that would occur, given that electric vehicles weigh more. He suggested the collision between a heavy EV and a light EV would greatly increase the likelihood of a death or serious injury because the added weight is in the battery, not structural components.
Still, small EVs would be great for cities in warm-to-moderate climates where you didn’t have far to drive, and only needed to charge the vehicle at home.
Published in Science and Technology
Those are the only numbers in that article. There is no information on how they did their count. It may be perfectly accurate, but there is no way to tell.
I say this because it’s hard to imagine why hybrids should be vastly more fire-prone than all-battery vehicles. The most plausible prior assumption would that hybrid rates would be between gas and EV. Is it all hybrids, or one or two bad eggs? I’d like to know.
Maybe hybrids get more fires in total because they have EV stuff AND gas stuff? Either of which could fail?
But since the EV part of a hybrid is smaller than what’s in a full EV, AND the gas part of a hybrid is smaller than what’s in a full gas car, either type of fire would end up being smaller and less of a problem.
Less protection for the gas with battery jammed in there instead of under the hood, away from gas tank? I looked at hybrids and chose a bigger v6 model because the hybrid had no room for a spare tire.
This was my point: Weight/contact patch represents a good proxy for road wear. Tire pressure changes contact patch size, but should not otherwise make much difference to the road. Contact patch is a function of tire height, width, tire pressure, and weight on the wheel with the tire construction being a key element. So calculating contact patch is not straightforward, but measuring contact patch is trivial. It is something every tire maker knows (but does not advertise). For a normal car, contact patch is often compared to a hand or a postcard. EVs aim for thinner tires under higher pressure, to minimize contact patch – and thus maximize road wear.
To compare EVs to trucks we need to know weight/contact patch. And then multiply by the number of wheels total (per vehicle, and per roadway).
If anyone can find comparative contact patches between EVs and trucks, we can apply some actual numbers to what is otherwise a hand-waving exercise.
No. She’s given up observing . . .
Some states add a property tax surcharge to make up for the lost revenue . . .
That’s the point. Roads are designed for heavy trucks, which bounds the effects of lighter cars. Significantly raising the weight of all cars however would be the equivalent of adding many more trucks on the road. Besides, we already have empirical data coming in which implies we may need to up the design for heavier vehicles to keep the roads drivable . . .
I will never put a tattletale device in my car, nor will I tell the government (or let it check) the number of miles I drive each year. I say get rid of gas tax and put road construction/maintenance in the general fund, because everyone benefits from the roads, whether they drive or not . . .
I heard coffee is now a bad actor . . .
Without the byproducts of fossil fuels, how will they renew roads as they decay from use? Roads are constructed with either the by products of oil refining or with concrete that includes coal ash.
Sorry, but it is a big deal. Charging at night (the immediate solution) can only go so far. If we go full electric, the grid will have to be enlarged, and a significant number of additional polluting (unless nuclear) power plants will have to be built. The problem is not capable of being solved with a bit of software . . .
I’m sure there is more data to be found by someone wanting to spend a little time looking for it. I grabbed one of the first articles I found. If you find a more thorough report, please do share it.
Yep – and plastic. Less steel means less protection in a collision . . .
I thought some hybrids had a cable cutter triggered by air bag deployment . . .
The whole Global Warming™ crisis is a pretense to control everything, so this is a feature to them, not a bug.
Plastic – the byproduct of refining fossil fuels.
It wouldn’t matter we would cut it anyway. I’m glad I retired from that but I can tell you we wouldn’t really care. This cable would probably be cut 90 seconds upon arrival on scene. A normal crew would be four people. One assessing the injured, one cutting power, the driver chocking the truck and setting up cones, and the last guy getting the spreaders.
I had a Mercedes Sprinter work van that I turned into a mobile office. If you didn’t know and it was in an accident, you would open the hood and cut the battery cable. But no, that wouldn’t be the engine battery. That’s located under the driver’s seat in the most dangerous spot you could pick. The one under the hood is for the power inverter.
But wait, there’s more! More bad news about EVs, that is:
https://www.theepochtimes.com/world/insurance-likely-to-cost-more-for-ev-owners-report-5588853?ea_src=author_manual&ea_med=related_stories
To be fair, the story is about EVs in Canada. However, I’d like to see some US figures, if available . . .
Plastic – great for use in EVs, unacceptable for use in straws . . .
On my hybrid, the starter battery in in the trunk, and the hybrid battery is located under the rear seat, ahead of the gas tank. I hope there’s a mini-firewall between the two . . . . . .
EV’s aren’t supposed to be single-use and disposable. But I laughed just the same.
It’s behind a paywall. But the word “likely” is helpful, anyway.
yes and no. the best protection is from a car that crumples to reduce the impact of the passengers. That can be done with more or less steel.
Friends in the UK report their (dead dinosaur-powered) car insurance has gone up by 2X in the past 5 years. When they queried, they were told it was to cover the risk of additional cost/losses given the higher number of EVs on the road. EVs are a lot more expensive to fix.
If you buy (for example) the top power V8 Mustang most insurance companies will charge you more because it’s a higher risk car.
It makes no sense to charge everybody for EV risk, when you can charge EV owners for the risk.
It would be if I was driving it.
Reading the original post, I couldn’t help but thinking that all those objections are just silly.
It won’t matter because you won’t be allowed to have a car. Car = freedom, and that equation will not be allowed. People in power will always enjoy what they want. The less you have, the easier it is for them to keep power. Your objections are only evidence of why you won’t be allowed to drive. Take public transport. It will keep you closer to where you belong. No venturing out for you.
It’s vastly more complex and scaled – it’s not “easily fixable”. Generation, transmission, and distribution would all be impacted, bigly.
It’s a trillion dollar question. It’s not software.
That’s why the governments may have to require the engine type not to be a factor included in actuarial tables for automotive risk. They already do it for some other factors.
But if government doesn’t allow them to vary rates by actual risk, they just pass along the cost to everyone.