Author Archives: runningonsouler@gmail.com

It’s back to school season, so it’s time for book reports.  This one is about one of the most important books I have read in a while—Electrify, by Saul Griffith, an Australian-American who earned his PhD from MIT.  This is a book I recommend to everyone.  It’s a little nerdy, but also accessible.  It describes a constructive and positive solution to the climate emergency—as well as a practical pathway, using available technology, to a better future with energy abundance, cleaner air, more jobs, and many other benefits.

The subtitle of Electrify is “An Optimist’s Playbook for Our Clean Energy Future.”  That aptly captures the key points in the book. 

The subtitle of Electrify is “An Optimist’s Playbook for Our Clean Energy Future.”  That aptly captures the key points in the book. 

It is an optimistic vision.  That is a welcome perspective in light of all the (understandable) gloom about what’s happening to the Earth’s climate stability.

It is a playbook that offers practical and constructive solutions—ones enabled by technologies that we have today, like electric motors, heat pumps, and solar panels.  That playbook is simple and elegant—to electrify our machines and to power them with abundant and cheap electricity from non-carbon sources, especially solar and wind energy. 

It is a playbook that offers practical and constructive solutions—ones enabled by technologies that we have today, like electric motors, heat pumps, and solar panels.  That playbook is simple and elegant—to electrify our machines and to power them with abundant and cheap electricity from non-carbon sources, especially solar and wind energy.  To end the era of fossil fuels by replacing our current energy system with something better.  To replace a system that powered our way of life in the 20^th century—but one that has imperiled the stability of Earth’s climate and wastes most of the energy we produce—with a 21^st century energy system that is far more efficient, cleaner, and better.

And the book is a story about the future—a future that will be not just cleaner, but better in every way that matters.  It changes the narrative about combating climate change—telling a story not about sacrifice and deprivation and what we have to lose, but about what we have to gain.

The author, Saul Griffith, is also helping to implement the better future he describes in the book by founding Rewiring America, a non-profit organization that offers people practical information on how to pursue the electrification transition in their own homes and lives. Check it out at rewiringamerica.org.

Electrify contains many profound and thought-provoking insights.  You can get the gist of the main messages from reading the first chapter, “A Glimmer of Hope,” along with the summary notes at the beginning of each subsequent chapter.  But it is well worth the time to read the book thoroughly and in depth to absorb the many ideas it offers.  The richness of the book and its insights is in the details.

The biggest reward for a careful reading of Electrify—and its most important message—is a change in our thinking about energy, the climate challenge, and humanity’s prospects for the future. 

The biggest reward for a careful reading of Electrify—and its most important message—is a change in our thinking about energy, the climate challenge, and humanity’s prospects for the future. 

Griffith traces the way our thinking about energy was formed during the oil shocks of the 1970s—and illustrates how we are still captive to that mindset, and how it is holding us back.  We have been trapped in a mindset of seeking marginal efficiency gains in the consumption of fossil fuels, together with increases in their supply.  Instead, what we need to do now is to transform to a 21^st century energy system—one that looks at demand and supply as an integrated system.

What that work shows is that we waste most of the energy we produce—primarily because of the inefficiencies of combusting fossil fuels, as well extracting and transporting them.  Most of our energy goes up “in smoke” as wasted heat.

The book describes the analytical work that has been done to trace, in detail, the way energy is supplied and consumed throughout the sectors of our economy—residential, commercial, industrial, and transportation.  What that work shows is that we waste most of the energy we produce—primarily because of the inefficiencies of combusting fossil fuels, as well extracting and transporting them.  Most of our energy goes up “in smoke” as wasted heat.  There’s a better way.

The electric technologies of the 21^st century—especially electric motors and heat pumps—offer energy efficiency gains with a factor of three improvement.  The result: we can power a transformed system with about half the energy we use now, while maintaining our current way of life, with the prospect of sustainable abundance into the future.

The electric technologies of the 21^st century—especially electric motors and heat pumps—offer energy efficiency gains with a factor of three improvement.  The result: we can power a transformed system with about half the energy we use now, while maintaining our current way of life, with the prospect of sustainable abundance into the future.

The other good news from an electrification effort?  It will generate millions of new jobs—good jobs, many in manufacturing, spread throughout the country.  And the states that currently serve as centers for fossil fuel production are especially well positioned for the deployment of the massive amounts of additional wind and solar farms during the electrification transition.

Though offering an optimistic vision of the future, Electrify does have a stark message for its readers.  We are almost out of time to address the climate emergency and preserve a stable climate. 

Though offering an optimistic vision of the future, Electrify does have a stark message for its readers.  We are almost out of time to address the climate emergency and preserve a stable climate.  Taking account of the current levels of carbon in the atmosphere, and then adding the emissions that will result from existing machines powered by fossil fuels (so-called “committed emissions”), means that we are nearing the carbon levels that will cause unrecoverable consequences.  What does that mean? It means that all our current fossil fuel machines need to be replaced with electric ones when they reach the end of their service lives. 

Every new car we buy, every new furnace, every new water heater—they all need to be electric.  Starting now.

Every new car we buy, every new furnace, every new water heater—they all need to be electric.  Starting now.

Here are some other insights offered in Electrify.

We should start thinking about infrastructure in a broader context—with an integrated energy demand-and-supply perspective.

We should start thinking about infrastructure in a broader context—more than the traditional list of big things like roads, bridges, power plants, pipelines, and transmission lines.  With an integrated demand-and-supply perspective, the heat pumps, storage batteries, and solar panels in our homes and other buildings become key parts of the energy infrastructure.

We should build a 21^st century electric grid that works more like the internet, with all sources of demand and supply linked and sharing energy in an integrated way.

Australia has already achieved a cost of $1 per kilowatt capacity for rooftop solar installations—about a third of the cost in America.  They achieved that by streamlining their regulations on things like permitting and inspections, and other drivers of “soft” (non-hardware) costs.   A cost of $1 per kilowatt is a true game-changer.

We need to rewrite the rules regulating our energy system to enable a 21^st century energy system—and to speed the deployment of new technologies while lowering their costs.  As one example of the benefits, Australia has already achieved a cost of $1 per kilowatt capacity for rooftop solar installations—about a third of the cost in America.  They achieved that by streamlining their regulations on things like permitting and inspections, and other drivers of “soft” (non-hardware) costs.   A cost of $1 per kilowatt is a true game-changer, making the cost to produce electricity locally lower than just the transmission cost of getting it from the utilities.

As we expand the electricity capacity to meet our electrification needs—to about three times today’s capacity—the expanded production of wind and solar will lower those costs still further—probably by half.

Renewable energy sources—solar and wind—are already the lowest-cost sources of new electrical generating capacity.  As we expand the electricity capacity to meet our electrification needs—to about three times today’s capacity—the expanded production of wind and solar will lower those costs still further—probably by half.

We can build a reliable electric grid using mostly renewable sources, especially solar and wind.  The keys will be a more interconnected grid and creative use of storage systems and demand management. 

We can build a reliable electric grid using mostly renewable sources, especially solar and wind.  The keys will be a more interconnected grid and creative use of storage systems and demand management.  There are lots of ways to store energy—many things can be a “battery” for storing electricity.

As we electrify more things—more vehicles, more furnaces, more water heaters—we will need more electricity, but balancing the grid gets easier as there are more things to average loads among.

Electrify takes a sensible approach to energy issues—often with a different perspective than many environmental groups. 

Electrify takes a sensible approach to energy issues—often with a different perspective than many environmental groups.  For example, the book describes a pragmatic approach to nuclear power, lauding its virtues, but also describing the challenges that must be overcome if it is going to make a contribution to the 21^st century electricity system.

Electrify also emphasizes the need for public-private partnerships to build the new energy system, highlighting the importance of creating financing mechanisms for the large upfront investments that are needed, rather than large amounts of direct government spending.  The book also emphasizes that we will need the capabilities and resources of the existing energy companies.

Electrify also emphasizes the need for public-private partnerships to build the new energy system, highlighting the importance of creating financing mechanisms for the large upfront investments that are needed, rather than large amounts of direct government spending.  The book also emphasizes that we will need the capabilities and resources of the existing energy companies, arguing that we will need them as allies rather than enemies.  It even suggests the heretical notion of a financial buyout of existing fossil fuel assets to promote that objective.

The book also takes a sensible approach to other approaches like hydrogen and biofuels.  Noting that the large energy losses in producing those fuels make them a poor alterative to electrification, the book does offer the prospect that they will be needed to meet specialized energy demands for some industrial processes and long-range transportation.

I found only two points of disagreement with the arguments in Electrify.  The first is the book’s de-emphasis of efficiency efforts.  The second is the book’s skepticism about carbon fees and other mechanisms for promoting the electrification transition.

I found only two points of disagreement with the arguments in Electrify.  The first is the book’s de-emphasis of efficiency efforts.  The second is the book’s skepticism about carbon fees and other mechanisms for promoting the electrification transition.

On efficiency, Electrify correctly argues that we can’t “efficiency our way to zero carbon.”  That is true.  But the book does not make a clear distinction between efficiency in the use of fossil fuels, on the one hand, and efficiency in the use of electricity, on the other hand.  More efficient use of fossil fuels doesn’t get us to zero carbon.  For example, a hybrid vehicle that gets better gas mileage may be better than a standard vehicle that uses more gasoline, but it’s still burning fossil fuels and emitting dangerous pollution over the life of the vehicle.  That doesn’t get us to the zero-carbon energy system we need.

But more efficient electric machines are a different story.  The book makes the point that the efficiency we really need is electrification—because that’s where we get the big efficiency gains, with electric machines offering a factor of three improvement in energy efficiency.  And that is true.  But producing and buying more efficient electric machines also helps.  By requiring less electricity, they get us to zero carbon faster and easier—and at less cost.  They can reduce both individual electricity consumption and also the required increase in total electrical generating capacity.  So maximizing the efficiency of things like our electric appliances makes an important contribution to the transition to a new energy system.  Programs like the EnergyStar system enable the transition by highlighting the most efficient appliances we can buy.

Efficiency alone is not the solution, but it makes an important contribution. 

In short, efficiency along is not the solution, but it makes an important contribution. A nuance perhaps, but an important one.

But the book begs the question: what are the best means to get us to the electrification solution?  The book doesn’t really say. 

On carbon fees, the book notes in an appendix that they are not actually a solution to the climate emergency.  Rather, they are a market mechanism to incentivize the transition away from fossil fuels.  Electrification is the actual solution.  Again, that is true.  But it begs the question: what are the best means to get us to the electrification solution?  The book doesn’t really say.  But the implication is that the means is the exhortation contained in the book—logical and data-driven arguments for why electrification is the solution.  Yes, the book describes steps that will help, such as electrification cost reductions from changes to rules and regulations as well as new mechanisms to finance the upfront costs of the transition.  But that still begs the question of what will make the transition happen, especially when so many people and businesses are still traveling on the default fossil fuel path—a default path that has a lot of powerful market inertia and economic interests sustaining it.

The book’s critique of carbon fees also makes a couple of negative claims about that approach that are probably incorrect, or at least highly debatable.  It states that it is too late for carbon fees and that their effect is regressive in placing a greater burden on lower-income people. 

Economists would say that enactment of a carbon fee, even one that doesn’t ramp up until later years, would have a powerful impact on long-term investment decisions. 

But economists would say that enactment of a carbon fee, even one that doesn’t ramp up until later years, would have a powerful impact on long-term investment decisions.  For example, what company would pursue plans for the construction of a natural gas power plant now, knowing that the cost of its fuel would escalate significantly in later years because of the carbon fee?  Especially when the costs of renewables are steadily declining.  Thousands of individual investment decisions throughout the economy and energy system would be impacted in a similar way by a carbon fee enacted today.

The economic impact of a carbon fee on households would depend on how the revenue is used. 

The economic impact of a carbon fee on households would depend on how the revenue is used.  The leading proposals combine a carbon fee with a dividend system that would return the revenues to households.  Studies have shown that a per capita dividend would actually make lower-income households better off when considering the combined effect of the fees they would pay indirectly and the dividends they would receive directly.  And that result makes sense because high-income people tend to have larger homes and use more energy.

It is probably better to start with positive financial incentives to pursue electrification, such as the ones in the 2022 Federal Inflation Reduction Act and other state programs offering rebates and tax-incentives.  Those can accelerate the momentum for the electrification transition and build the American manufacturing base for the key ingredients.

There are certainly serious questions about the political ability to pass a carbon fee, as evidenced by the current situation.  It is probably better to start with positive financial incentives to pursue electrification, such as the ones in the 2022 Federal Inflation Reduction Act and other state programs offering rebates and tax-incentives.  Those can accelerate the momentum for the electrification transition and build the American manufacturing base for the key ingredients—the electric vehicles, batteries, heat pumps, solar panels, and wind turbines.  By scaling up production, they can also help lower costs over time.  It is probably not viable, either practically or politically, to impose a carbon fee before people have access to affordable EVs, heat pumps, and other electric machines.  So the first step is to build that foundation.  But once those systems reach a critical mass, both in terms of consumer acceptance and manufacturing capability, the political power to enact measures like a carbon fee will grow—in the same way that taxes on cigarettes became politically palatable as non-smokers became a solid majority.  At that point, a carbon fee could help accelerate the transition and extend it to the more challenging sectors, such as high-temperature manufacturing and long-range transportation.

——————————————————————————————-

To end this book report on a positive note—appropriate to the book—Electrify offers a call to Americans to regain their optimism about the future and their can-do spirit.  Ironically, perhaps it takes an Australian immigrant to remind Americans of our optimistic nature and history. 

The book recounts the many serious challenges that Americans have taken on in the past—and triumphed in doing so. 

The book recounts the many serious challenges that Americans have taken on in the past—and triumphed in doing so.  The industrial mobilization that won World War II, when America became the Arsenal of Democracy.  The space race, when America pulled off the miraculous achievement of landing humans on the Moon within a decade—a triumph that in some ways appeared even more miraculous when the 50^th anniversary was celebrated a few years ago.  The book also recounts other American accomplishments outside the realm of technology, such as financial innovations and social movements for equal rights.

Defeatism about America’s ability to succeed in the necessary transition to a new energy system is infuriating for two reasons. 

A defeatist attitude about transitioning away from fossil fuels is factually wrong.  As Electrify describes, we have a path to a solution—one that is elegant, available with current technology, and better in every way than the fossil fuel system that served us well in the 20^th century but is now obsolete. 

First, a defeatist attitude about transitioning away from fossil fuels is factually wrong.  As Electrify describes, we have a path to a solution—one that is elegant, available with current technology, and better in every way than the fossil fuel system that served us well in the 20^th century but is now obsolete. 

Defeatism about the future is fundamentally un-American.  We have always been a country unafraid to lead into the future and to take on, and overcome, great challenges in the process.  Indeed, the American Dream itself is fundamentally based on a belief that the future will be better. 

Second, defeatism about the future is fundamentally un-American.  We have always been a country unafraid to lead into the future and to take on, and overcome, great challenges in the process.  Indeed, the American Dream itself is fundamentally based on a belief that the future will be better.  We have a path to a better future—both a clean energy system that offers abundance and a way to avoid the dystopian future we face if we continue on our current path.

By leading the way, America can put itself in a position to lead the 21^st century, as it did in the 20^th century. 

Electrify also addresses the critique sometimes offered to delay action on climate change: that it will do no good for America to get off fossil fuels if the rest of the world continues to use them.  But that is another version of the defeatist attitude.  America led the 20^th century transition to a petroleum-based energy system.  The rest of the world followed, and America prospered as leader in that technology.  In the same way, America can and should lead the way to the 21^st century energy system.  Others will follow because the new system will be better—cleaner and more efficient, with better performance.  And by leading the way, America can put itself in a position to lead the 21^st century, as it did in the 20^th century.  Indeed, by building the expertise and the manufacturing base, America, with its wealth of resources and land, can again become the leader in energy technology, with an accompanying renaissance of manufacturing business and jobs.  Americans at Bell Labs developed the first practical solar cells in 1954—why aren’t we the leading exporter of solar systems today?

We have nothing to fear in the transition away from fossil fuels, and much to gain. The future is electric—let’s get going!

We have nothing to fear in the transition away from fossil fuels, and much to gain. The future is electric—let’s get going!

RunningOnSouler recently sponsored an Ask An EV Owner Anything Interview, with Evie and Ice.  During the interview, there were questions from Ice, the owner of a vehicle powered by a gasoline-fueled internal combustion engine car, with answers from Evie, an electric vehicle owner.

This was an opportunity for Ice to ask Evie anything and everything about what it’s like to own and drive an electric vehicle. 

For many people, what you think you know about electric vehicles may be wrong—perhaps even the opposite of the truth.  Learn more about the advantages offered by EVs in performance, convenience, reliability, and operating costs.  And get answers to your questions about charging and range—and how the electric grid will support the transition to electric driving, and how EVs will support the grid.

The interview has been edited for content and length.  It is suitable only for nerdy audiences. 

——————————————————————————————-

Ice.  Evie, thanks for spending some time to answer my questions about EVs.  I’ve got a ton of questions, but let me start with some quick ones.  What were your initial concerns when you were considering going electric, and how has your experience as an EV owner addressed those concerns?

Evie.  When I first looked at an EV, a Nissan Leaf, my initial reaction was that it was too expensive, and I had real concerns about its limited range.  Nissan addressed the cost issue by offering an attractive lease program. 

After I starting using an EV, I realized that even the very limited range offered by the first-generation Leaf—84 miles—wasn’t a significant obstacle for local driving, especially once I started to appreciate the benefits of charging at home—basically, a “gas pump” in my garage that greeted me with a “full tank” every morning.

And after I starting using an EV, I realized that even the very limited range offered by the first-generation Leaf—84 miles—wasn’t a significant obstacle for local driving, especially once I started to appreciate the benefits of charging at home—basically, a “gas pump” in my garage that greeted me with a “full tank” every morning.

Ice.  OK, thanks.  I’m sure we’ll come back to those themes, but let me first ask another quick one.  How did your friends or family react when you decided to go electric?

Evie.  Everyone’s first reaction, including my sons who were in their 20s at the time, was that this was a cool car.  Especially compared to the Prius I had before that.  And everyone thought the car was a blast to drive, with its quick acceleration.

Ice.  How has driving an EV impacted your daily life? 

Evie.  The first thing that comes to mind is that electric driving has made my life much more convenient, thanks to the ability to charge in my garage, which means I never have to stop at a gas station around home, which is where the vast majority of driving occurs.  And that’s really nice when it’s cold and rainy outside and I just want to get home. 

Electric driving has made my life much more convenient, thanks to the ability to charge in my garage, which means I never have to stop at a gas station around home, which is where the vast majority of driving occurs.

By the way, this is one of the things that most people get wrong—actually the opposite of the truth. They don’t realize that EVs are actually more convenient and take less time to charge compared to pumping gas. 

Many of the things people think they know about EVs are not only wrong—but the opposite of the reality.

That’s one of the main themes I’ll be hitting in our discussion.  Many of the things people think they know about EVs are not only wrong—but the opposite of the reality.

I guess the other important thing I’d mention is that driving an EV has allowed me to do something about my concern about climate change. 

Switching to electric driving has also saved me some money, especially when gas prices are high.

And the switch to electric driving has also saved me some money, especially when gas prices are high.

Ice.  OK, you’ve hit a couple of the topics I want to cover, especially charging, and we’ll come back to that.  But first, one other quick one.  What was the biggest surprise—pleasant or unpleasant—from switching to electric driving?

Evie.  Pleasant surprise?  Well, maybe not a surprise, but a pleasant experience, would be how much fun an EV is to drive with its quick, quiet, smooth acceleration and responsiveness.  I knew a lot about EVs, so I guess I’d say that my biggest surprise when I got my second EV, a Tesla, has been how powerful the software updates are.  Those are all provided over the air, so on a fairly regular basis I wake up the next morning and find some nice new features added to my car.  I did not expect those to be as frequent as they are, or as powerful.  They frequently add new capabilities, so the car is constantly improving, just like your iPhone.

Ice.  Any unpleasant surprises?

Evie.  Nothing really big, but the one thing that has been a little disappointing is the reduced range at high speeds.  That’s true also of gas-powered cars, because at high speeds wind resistance goes way up.  But I’m more aware of it with my EV.

Ice.  OK, let’s start my more detailed questions on a positive note.  What’s the best thing about owning an electric vehicle?

Evie.  Well, that’s actually a tough one, because it’s hard to pick just one good thing.  There are so many advantages.  And many of those advantages are things that many people—people who aren’t familiar with electric vehicles—would consider a problem or a disadvantage. 

It’s hard to pick just one good thing about EVs.  There are so many advantages.  And many of those advantages are things that people who aren’t familiar with electric vehicles would consider a problem or a disadvantage. 

In fact, as I said a minute ago, that’s one of my main messages to people who haven’t made the electric transition yet.  Many of the things you think you know about EVs aren’t just wrong; they’re the opposite of the truth.

But let’s start with the obvious good thing about electric vehicles.  They don’t put carbon dioxide and other pollution into the air.  That’s probably the reason a lot of people first bought EVs, especially the early adopters.  The environmental benefit.  But I’ll mention that even this benefit is sometimes questioned when people argue that EVs don’t cut pollution because they just shift the pollution from the car’s tailpipe to the power plant’s smokestack.  That’s not true, for several reasons, but let’s come back to that.

Ice.  OK, good, because that’s actually one of my questions: do EVs really reduce pollution.

Evie.  OK, sure, let’s come back to that later.  For now, let me just say EV owners like the idea that their cars aren’t polluting and making the climate problem worst.  And that’s usually one of their primary motivations for going electric. 

But to go back to your original question, one of the big advantages that EV owners quickly appreciate once they start driving electric is how much better the performance is.  The driving experience is so much better, and the vast majority of EV owners will tell you that after experiencing electric driving, they can never go back to a gas-powered car.  One of the things I always say to owners of gas cars is that they should find an opportunity to drive an EV and see for themselves how much better the performance and overall driving experience is.

One of the big advantages that EV owners quickly appreciate once they start driving electric is how much better the performance is.  The driving experience is so much better, and the vast majority of EV owners will tell you that after experiencing electric driving, they can never go back to a gas-powered car. 

The first and most obvious thing you will experience is the amazing acceleration of an EV.  You get that from an EV because of the instant torque provided by an electric motor. 

The first and most obvious thing you will experience is the amazing acceleration of an EV from the instant torque provided by an electric motor. 

Even an EV with relatively limited horsepower—like my first EV, a Nissan Leaf, which has only about 100 horsepower—will give you that quick acceleration.  And it’s not just quick, but it’s smooth and quiet, with none of hesitation and gear-shifting you get from an internal combustion engine.  And a more capable EV, like my Tesla Model Y, will blow you away with its acceleration.  It’s a blast to drive.

The other word I would use to describe the driving experience with an EV is responsive.  The car does exactly what you tell it to do, exactly when you tell the car to do it, and the car doesn’t do anything you don’t tell it to do.  When you first drive an EV, you experience the quick acceleration right away.  You can’t miss that.  But the responsiveness is a little more subtle and takes a little longer to appreciate. 

The other word to describe the driving experience with an EV is responsive. 

The best example is regenerative braking and one-pedal driving.  Electric cars have what’s called regenerative braking, which uses the electric motor instead of the brakes to slow down.  And the motor uses the energy it captures from slowing down to recharge the battery.  A Prius hybrid has regenerative braking, and it’s one of the ways it gets such good gas mileage.  But it’s an inherent feature of EVs.  Regenerative braking means that you rarely have to use the brake pedal because the electric motor is doing that for you when you let up on the accelerator.  That’s called one-pedal driving, and it’s another one of the driving experience advantages of an EV.  It’s especially great on mountain roads where you would otherwise have to constantly be switching from the accelerator to the brake.  

Regenerative braking means that you rarely have to use the brake pedal because the electric motor is doing that for you when you let up on the accelerator.  That’s called one-pedal driving, and it’s another one of the driving experience advantages of an EV. 

But getting back to responsiveness, the other great thing about regenerative braking, in addition to energy efficiency and one-pedal driving, is that the car does only what you tell it to do.  It only accelerates when you tell it to you.  This point hits me when I switch from driving our EVs to our one remaining gas-powered car.  That car continues to barrel forward when I let up on the accelerator and only slows when I hit the brake.  I want to scream at the car as it barrels forward, “I didn’t tell you to do that!”  Again, it’s a subtle point, but it’s an example of why EV drivers can never go back.

And by the way, just to finish on the topic of better performance and driving experience, this is one of the things that a lot of people who are still driving gas cars get wrong.  Many people think EVs are somehow underpowered or slow, but in fact the opposite is true.  EVs are just better cars, and a lot more fun to drive.

Ice.  OK, you said in the beginning that you would have a tough time picking just one good thing.  What are the others?

Evie.  Well, I guess I would highlight three other advantages, in addition to environmental benefits and performance.  First, it’s more convenient, and usually less time consuming, to charge an EV than it is to fuel a gasoline-powered car.  Second, EVs are more reliable.  Third, EVs are much cheaper to operate.

It’s more convenient, and usually less time consuming, to charge an EV than it is to fuel a gasoline-powered car.

Ice.  Wait, I’ve got to stop you there.  You’re saying that charging is a good thing?  Doesn’t it takes a lot longer to charge your EV’s battery than it takes me to pump gas into my car?  So how can that be an advantage?  Isn’t charging one of the big downsides of an EV?

Evie.  As I said before, a lot of what people believe about EVs is not only wrong, but the opposite of the truth.  Most people think about charging just as you indicated in your question.  In fact, if I had to identify the biggest misconception about EVs, it would be charging.  This is, by far, the biggest overblown “problem” regarding EVs. 

I constantly hear all the concerns about the time to charge and the problem in finding chargers and building a charging infrastructure for EVs.  But from my experience with two EVs over several years and many road trip miles, those are mostly non-issues.

Ice.  OK, explain that one to me?

Evie.  The fundamental problem in people’s thinking about charging is that they think of it like pumping gasoline into a car.  They think they’re going to be standing next to an EV waiting for the electrons to flow into the battery, like gasoline into a fuel tank—only much slower.

Ice.  Well, isn’t that basically true?

Evie.  No, it’s not.  And here’s why.  When you fuel your car, you go to a gas station to pump gas in it.  Maybe you also go to the bathroom or run into the convenience store, but fundamentally you’re making that stop to refuel your car.  And you spend five minutes or so on refueling.

With an EV, you are not stopping to charge.  It’s a completely different paradigm.   With an EV, you charge while you’re parked to do something else.  Let me say that again—you’re not stopping to charge, you’re charging while you’ve stopped and parked to do something else. 

Usually, the something else is sleeping, so you charge overnight and wake up in the morning with a full “tank,” having spent zero time charging.  The other thing is typically eating.  You stop at a restaurant for lunch during a trip, and the EV is charging while you’re parked for that.  And the EV is almost always going to be done charging before you’re done eating.  Again, effectively zero time charging from the driver’s point of view.

With an EV, you are not stopping to charge.  It’s a completely different paradigm.   With an EV, you charge while you’re parked to do something else—usually sleeping or eating.  That’s why charging an EV usually takes less time than fueling a gas car.

So that’s why charging an EV usually takes less time than fueling a gas-powered car.

To be a little more specific, in my own personal life, at home, I never have to stop at a gas station.  My EV charges at night, giving me a full tank every morning.  And that’s 80-90 percent of most people’s driving—around home—so that’s a huge savings of time, not to mention a big improvement in convenience in not having to stop at a gas station to fill the tank when it’s cold or rainy outside and you just want to get home. 

And on a road trip, if you stay in hotels with chargers, it’s just like home—a full battery is waiting for you in the morning. 

On a road trip, if you stay in hotels with chargers, it’s just like home—a full battery is waiting for you in the morning. 

And then you make a stop at a restaurant with a fast charger when you’re ready for lunch and the car is fully charged when you get back from eating.  Again, essentially no time spent charging, and much more convenient.

Ice.  But doesn’t this happy picture you’re portraying depend on those chargers being available?

Evie.  Well, sure.  I was going to get to the caveats, which mostly have to do with the transition period we’re in now.  First, of course, at home you need to have a charger for charging overnight.  That’s no big deal for people who live in homes with garages or carports or some other dedicated parking space where they can install a 240-volt plug and a charger. 

For people who live in apartments or other places with no parking or dedicated parking spaces for charging, that’s one of the issues that needs to be addressed during the electrification transition.  There are potential solutions available, but we’re not there yet.  Let’s come back to that later when we talk about challenges.

For people who live in apartments or other places with no parking or dedicated parking spaces for charging, that’s one of the issues that needs to be addressed during the electrification transition. 

The other things needed to make the EV charging paradigm I described work are chargers at hotels and plenty of fast chargers along the highways, especially at fast-food restaurants and rest stops.  There are already a lot more of both of those things than most people imagine.  And that’s not just a theoretical statement. 

We recently did a road trip to all 51 National Parks in the Lower 48 states—a fantastic trip, by the way.  So we can now say that long road trips are not just theoretically possible.  We actually did it.  And to some of the most remote places in America.  Almost all the lodges and hotels we stayed in had chargers—and there are more and more all the time.  And there are fast chargers all over the country. 

We recently did an electric road trip to all 51 National Parks in the Lower 48 states.  So we can now say that long road trips are not just theoretically possible.  We actually did it.  And to some of the most remote places in America. 

I will say that, in 2022, we could have only done the trip in our Tesla, using the Supercharger fast charging network, which has been built all over the country during the last several years.  It is a superb network in every way.  The other fast charging standard used by other EVs, called CCS for Combined Charging System, is not there yet.  But those networks are being built out rapidly by several different companies, though they have a ways to go to meet the gold standard set by the Supercharging system.

Even in the most remote locations of America—and many of the National Parks are in very remote locations—an important point to remember is that electricity is ubiquitous.  In fact, electricity is more ubiquitous than gas stations. 

Even in the most remote locations of America—and many of the National Parks are in very remote locations—electricity is ubiquitous. 

In places where there are no chargers—yet—there is always an electric plug.  Lots of campsites have 240-volt hookups, and one of those combined with a mobile charger that most EVs come with can easily provide an overnight charge.  Functionally, it just like a Level 2 or Destination Charger at a hotel.  And even a regular 120-volt plug can provide 50-70 miles of charge overnight, enough to get around in those remote locations.  We actually did that in Sequoia National Park, where there were no chargers when we made the trip.

Ice.  I’m guessing that trip of yours took a lot of planning to find the hotels that had chargers.  How would people not familiar with EVs check out the availability of chargers?

Evie.  For people who don’t appreciate how many chargers are already out there, I always recommend that they check out a free app or website called PlugShare. 

For people who don’t appreciate how many chargers are already out there, I recommend that they check out a free app or website called PlugShare. 

Every EV owner is familiar with that.  That’s what I did when I got my first EV—at the suggestion of the salespeople from Nissan who sold me my Leaf.  PlugShare is basically the wiki for chargers.  Owners of both chargers and EVs post the locations of chargers—including photos, notes, and reviews—and it shows just about every charger in the country.  And there are a lot of them.  So PlugShare was very useful for planning our electric road trip.  Tesla and the other companies that operate chargers also show their chargers on their websites and apps, and typically on the car’s control screen as well.

There’s one last thing I’ll say about the charging issue being overblown.  Remember, the whole paradigm for EV charging is different than fueling at a gas station.  When people talk about the lack of a charging infrastructure, they are implicitly assuming that we need to replace all those gas stations with EV charging stations, and probably more since it takes longer.  But again, most of the charging is going to be done overnight, either at home or in hotels.  So those chargers become, in effect, gas stations, and they will be the places where most charging is done. 

When people talk about the lack of a charging infrastructure, they are implicitly assuming that we need to replace all the gas stations with EV charging stations.  But most of the charging is going to be done overnight, either at home or in hotels.  So those chargers become, in effect, gas stations, and they will be the places where most charging is done. 

Yes, we also need the fast chargers along the highways for road trips—like the gas stations we have now.  But even more than those kinds of charging stations, we’ll want the chargers to be at restaurants so we can charge during lunch or dinner.  So instead of lots of fast chargers at places that look like gas stations, we’ll want most of them in the parking lots of McDonalds, Subway, and Chipotle.

Instead of lots of fast chargers at places that look like gas stations, we’ll want most of them in the parking lots of McDonalds, Subway, and Chipotle.

Ice. OK…

Evie. Sorry to interrupt, but there’s one more point I want to make about the charging issue being overblown.  All the concern about this issue seems to be based on an implicit assumption that, somehow, the auto companies are going to make millions of EVs over the next few years and, while that is happening, no one is going to be building more chargers for them.  And it just amazes me that people who are otherwise big believers in capitalism make that argument.  That might have been an issue when there were only a few EVs on the roads and no one was going to build a network of chargers for a very small number of EVs.  Under those circumstances, charging companies couldn’t possibly make money given the cost of building a nationwide network. 

The concern about the charging infrastructure seems to be based on an implicit assumption that the auto companies are going to make millions of EVs over the next few years and, while that is happening, no one is going to be building more chargers for them.  But there are several companies in the charging business, and they are rapidly building out the networks across the country as they see an opportunity to make money from the growing numbers of EVs.

Tesla, as the first mass producer of EVs, recognized the chicken-and-egg problem and solved it by building their own network.  As they have gone from producing thousands of cars to hundreds of thousands, and soon millions, they have managed to keep up with the growing demands on their Supercharge network by plowing the money they get from Tesla owners paying for Supercharging into building more charging stations every year.

And that’s exactly what’s going to happen with EVs from other automakers.  We’re way past the chicken-and-egg problem at this point.  There are several companies in the charging business—including EVGO, ChargePoint, Electrify America, and others—and they are rapidly building out the CCS fast charging networks across the country as they see an opportunity to make money from the growing numbers of EVs.  The magic of capitalism and the profit motive at work!

Ice.  OK, I’m getting your point about charging being different than pumping gas: you’re parked to do something else and charge while you’re doing that.  But are you saying that the speed of charging doesn’t matter at all?  It takes 5 minutes to pump gas into a car, but something like a half hour to charge an EV.  You don’t think that speed difference matters?

Evie.  No, I’m not saying that speed doesn’t matter at all, and I’m glad you asked that question because that’s another point I wanted to mention.  Charging speeds are getting faster all the time, and that’s a good thing. 

Charging speeds are getting faster all the time.  But while speed is a good thing, it is less important than you might think once you understand the paradigm for charging while parked for other activities. 

The first fast chargers might have pumped electrons at a rate of 120 kilowatts—some even as low as 50 kilowatts.  Later that increased to 150 kilowatts, and then 250 kilowatts, and some of the new ones can operate at 350 kilowatts.  So that’s a good thing because a 30-minute charge becomes a 20 minute charge, and then 15 minutes, and maybe it’ll get down to 10 minutes.  So that’s good.  But my point is that, given the paradigm for EV charging, speed is less significant in the real world than the number of minutes might seem, because if it takes you 30 minutes to eat lunch, it doesn’t matter if the charging is done in 15 minutes. 

There are also issues in how the rate of pumping electrons into an EV affects the health of its battery. 

My only point is that speed, which is a good thing, is less important than you might think once you understand the paradigm for charging while parked for other activities. 

The main advantage of faster charging is for what I call the “edge” cases.  That is, the 5 or 10% of the drivers who want to drive 700 miles in a day and not stop to eat.  Or if they’re towing a trailer, which will eat up range faster than usual.  In those cases, faster charging might be important.  That’s a relatively small part of the population, but faster charging will certainly help with the adoption of EVs by addressing those kinds of user needs.

Ice.  You mentioned that Tesla’s Supercharging network is the gold standard.  In addition to geographic gaps in the other fast charging networks, haven’t I heard about lots of problems with reliability with the chargers deployed by these other companies?

Evie.  Yes, that is a fair observation.  Although the Tesla Supercharger network is remarkably reliable, I’ve seen some studies and surveys that indicate that as many as one-fifth to one-quarter of the chargers operated by other companies are inoperable for one reason or another.  Some of them also require special apps to log in—as compared to Tesla’s Superchargers, which start charging as soon as you plug in and automatically charge the cost to your account.  The other networks need to make their fast chargers at least as reliable and easy to use as the gas pumps that people are used to.

The charging networks need to make their fast chargers at least as reliable and easy to use as the gas pumps that people are used to.

Ice.  OK, before we started talking about charging, you mentioned a couple of other advantages of EVs.  Can you discuss those?

Evie.  Sure, but it was worth spending some time on charging since so many people are hung up on that. 

The other two benefits of driving electric that I would highlight are reliability and lower operating costs.

I’ll cover reliability first because it’s pretty straightforward.  Electric motors are inherently less complex than internal combustion engines, and lower complexity generally translates to improved reliability.  There are many fewer parts, so there are fewer things to break.

Electric motors are inherently less complex than internal combustion engines, and lower complexity generally translates to improved reliability. 

 Automobile engineers have succeeded over the years in making internal combustion engines incredibly reliable, and everyone has confidence that their car will get them to work in the morning without any mechanical issues.  But that reliability record is constantly at odds with the complexity of those machines.  Electric motors have a much easier task with their vastly reduced complexity.  Moreover, electric motors have been around for more than a century, so they are a proven technology.  This is another case where some people believe the opposite of what is true: that electric cars are some exotic new invention to be wary of.

That’s not to say that all EVs are reliable.  Reliability also depends on the design of the vehicle and the engineering quality of the automaker.  So you can certainly have issues with an EV, but they are almost never associated with the propulsion issue—because electric motors are so reliable.

I mentioned our six-month trip to all the National Parks before.  During that trip, we traveled almost 27,000 without a single mechanical problem or maintenance item.  Not only no repair issues, but no need for an oil change or anything like that. 

During our six-month trip to all the National Parks, we traveled almost 27,000 without a single mechanical problem or maintenance item. 

With a gas car, we would had to get the oil changed three or four times.  In fact, electric cars are so reliable one of the challenges associated with the transition is how auto dealers will make money without the service business they are used to with gasoline cars.

Ice.  OK, I’ll buy that your argument that electric motors are reliable, but I think the real concern is the batteries.  So what about the batteries in an EV?

Evie.  That’s a good point, and I think you’re right that the batteries are probably the real concern for most people.  Let’s come back to that point, but the short version is that the batteries in cars are much different than the ones in your cell phone.  I think everyone has the experience that cell phone batteries last only two or three years before they start to lose significant capacity.  But the chemistries in those batteries are very different than the ones in EVs.  But let’s come back to that when we talk about range.

Ice.  All right, let’s finish up your list of good things.  I think you mentioned operating costs as the last item on your list.

Evie.  Right.  So we’ve talked about environmental benefits, and performance, and charging convenience, and reliability.  So let’s talk about costs.  Let me first say that one of the big issues when we get to challenges associated with EVs is their upfront costs.  We’ll talk about that issue a little later.  But on the operating cost side of the coin, over the life of the vehicle, EVs have a big advantage.  First, there is virtually no maintenance like there is for a gas-powered car.  No oil changes.  No tune-ups.  More generally, the reduced complexity of an electric engine brings not only greater reliability, but also fewer things that need maintenance or repair.

Consumer Reports did a report in 2020 that found that EVs cut repair and maintenance costs by 50 percent, saving hundreds of dollars a year. Of course, they also pointed out that the savings depend on the particular car and the automaker.  Just as there are more or less reliable gas-powered cars, there are differences in the quality of EVs from different companies.  But on average, EVs save on maintenance.

Consumer Reports did a report in 2020 that found that EVs cut repair and maintenance costs by 50 percent, saving hundreds of dollars a year.

The bigger savings are in charging costs compared to buying gas for an internal combustion engine car.  Of course, there’s a wide range of fuel efficiency for gas cars, and gas prices fluctuate a lot, so it’s hard to give one single number for the savings.  For an EV, it also depends on where you charge.  But, big picture, the savings from charging an EV compared to buying gas can be quite significant—with the charging costs as low as one-third of the cost of buying gasoline—that is, two-thirds lower.

The savings from charging an EV compared to buying gas can be quite significant—with the charging costs as low as one-third of the cost of buying gasoline.

You can look at the comparison using cost per mile as a metric, but I like to use annual costs, which I think is a more meaningful figure for most people.  For an average annual driving mileage of 12,000 miles, an EV is going to use about 3,500 kilowatt-hours of electricity—assuming 3.5 miles per kilowatt-hour of electricity.  At the national average of 15 cents per kilowatt-hour, that’ll cost about $500.  It would be more in California, where electricity costs about 25 cents, or less in Seattle where it costs about 12 cents.  Where we live, in Virginia, the electricity rate is currently about 14 cents, so we pay a little more than $480 a year to charge an EV.

Now compare that $500 for charging an EV to fueling a gas car.  For 12,000 miles of driving, an average-mileage car getting 25 to 30 miles per gallon would use about 450 gallons of gasoline per year.  At a price of $3.50 per gallon, that’s about $1,600 per year for fuel costs.  In that particular example, you get an EV cost a little less one-third of the cost of gasoline–$500 compared to $1,600.

Of course, you can get all sorts of different numbers, depending on individual circumstances and market conditions.  A Prius getting 50 mpg would use only 250 gallons of gasoline at an annual cost of about $850, which would make the EV savings closer to half.  On the other hand, a gas-guzzler getting 20 mpg would have to buy 600 gallons of gasoline at a cost of more than $2,000.  And if gas prices go back to $5 or more, the EV savings get really impressive.  With $5 gas prices, even an average 25 to 30 mpg car would have an annual gasoline bill of more than $2,200 compared to $500 for an EV.  And those savings come not just once, but year after year.

If gas prices go back to $5 or more, the EV savings get really impressive. 

There are also ways EVs can cut their charging costs even more.  Some electric utilities offer lower rates at off-peak hours.  In Virginia, those rates can be as low as 10 cents.  Taking advantage of those rates could cut annual charging costs to as little as $350.

Over a 10-year ownership life of a car, the lower cost of charging could easily save $10,000, even more with high gas prices.

Over a 10-year ownership life of a car, the lower cost of charging could easily save $10,000, even more with high gas prices.

Ice.  Well, those are some impressive savings, but don’t they depend on people having access to chargers at homes or other places where they paying residential electricity rates?

Evie.  Yes, I was just going to get to that.  There are definitely situations that aren’t as favorable for EVs on cost.  But even in those cases, we’re still talking about lower costs than fueling with gas—it’s just that the savings aren’t as large.

As your question implies, the favorable cases for EVs that I’ve been outlining are based on people having access to a charger in their garage or somewhere else where they’re being charged residential rates for electricity—around 15 cents as a national average. 

The favorable cases for EVs are based on people having access to a charger in their garage or somewhere else where they’re being charged residential rates for electricity.

In contrast, if you have to use commercial chargers, you going to pay more—maybe somewhere in the neighborhood of 35 cents.  That’s because you’re paying not only for the electricity, but also the cost of the charger, as well as the cost of doing business for the charging company.  In that case, the $500 annual cost for 3,000 kilowatt-hours of electricity becomes a little less than $1,200.  That’s probably still less than buying gas, but the savings aren’t nearly as large.

This highlights a point we discussed earlier about access to charging.  People who live in apartments or other places that don’t have dedicated parking spaces are probably not going to have access to a “home” charger.  So not only are they going to miss out on some of the convenience of home charging, but they are also going to have to use commercial chargers, at a higher cost.

Ice.  So the charging issue maybe isn’t so over blown?

Evie.  OK, good point.  Let me clarify.  I’m saying the charging issue is over blown, but I’m not saying we don’t need more chargers.  We definitely need more fast chargers along the highways.  And we need chargers at every hotel, and more of them.  But those things are going to happen—in fact, they are happening—because…capitalism. 

But the problem of residential access—let’s just call it the “apartment charging” problem for shorthand—is a little more complicated due to ownership and access issues.  The apartments may own the parking lots, but they may not be interested in getting into the charging business.  And the charging companies may not be interested in dealing with a lot of apartment complexes and all their unique situations.  Plus, even if you install some chargers in an apartment parking lot, you’ve got the problem of allocating them or creating some sort of a reservation system.  And in some cases, there are no parking lots, and people use street parking. 

The problem of access to for “apartment charging” is a little more complicated due to ownership and access issues. 

I don’t think these problems are insolvable, but they’re going to require some attention and creativity from both business and government.  And the solutions are more complex than the need for more fast chargers.  In the fast charger case, we just need to keep doing more of what we’re already doing, with for-profit businesses doing it.  In contrast, the residential charging problem needs creating solutions.  As one example, some cities are starting to install chargers on street lights.

Ice.  Perhaps there’s a business case for some sort of a new start-up company to solve the apartment problem?

Evie.  Probably so.  I certainly hope there are people out there thinking about this problem.  I’ll mention one approach that I think can be at least part of the solution to what we’re calling the “apartment charging” problem.  And that’s the workplace.  When you think about the charging paradigm—remember, you charge while you’re parked to do something else—you start thinking about the other places, besides home, where people are parked for long periods of time.  And for many people, that’s at work.  So for businesses that have parking lots for their employees, deploying chargers there could be a great solution for many people who don’t have access to chargers at home.  It could even be offered for free or at low cost as an employee benefit. 

Access to daytime charging at the workplace would be one solution for people who don’t have a charger at home—a solution that would be very compatible with the overall transition to electrification powered by energy from the sun.

One of the reasons I really like the workplace charging idea is that it is very compatible with the overall transition to electrification powered by energy from the sun.  When you deploy lots of solar power, you can get to a point where there is more electricity being generated in the peak daylight hours than is being demanded from the grid.  In fact, that is already happening in places with high rates of solar deployments, like Hawaii.  It reverses the previous situation where nighttime—when everyone is sleeping and using very little electricity—is the period of low demand and excess generating capacity.

One of the solutions to the “problem” of excess solar capacity—and I put that in air quotes because having too much energy is not really a problem—is what’s called demand management.  Earlier, I mentioned utilities offering lower off-peak rates, usually at night now, which they do to shift demand to periods of excess capacity.  Well, when we have “too much”—air quotes again—electricity during the day from solar power, the demand management solution will be to shift consumption to those periods of excess capacity.  What better way to do that than having lots of people charge their EVs during the afternoon, when they’re parked at work.  We could go on about this topic, but the only point for now is that there are probably lots of solutions to the “apartment charging” problem other than just more overnight chargers at apartment parking lots.

Ice.  Interesting discussion.  But I think you’re right, we’re getting a little off the topic of electric vehicles.

Evie.  I agree, but there is a broader point here—an important point.  And that is that the solutions to our climate and energy problems need to be thought about systematically.  The more you explore the means and implications of electrification more generally—not just electric vehicles—the more you realize that we need to do more than just build electric cars.  We need to transform our entire energy system in a way that is mutually reinforcing.  And the potential demand management role that EVs can play for the transformed electric grid is one of the best examples of that.

EVs can play an important role in supporting a modern electric grid powered by energy from the sun through demand management.

In fact, it’s more than just demand management—that is, encouraging EVs charging during the day when there’s abundant and presumably cheap solar power.  The batteries in EVs can also play a major role in storing electricity to help stabilize a transformed electric grid powered primarily by intermittent solar and wind power.  When we have millions of EVs, they will represent a huge amount of storage capacity.  So some of that excess afternoon energy gained from charging during the day could be given back to the grid in the evening, if needed.

The batteries in EVs can also play a major role in storing electricity to help stabilize a transformed electric grid powered primarily by intermittent solar and wind power. 

Those EV batteries also have the potential to provide a backup generator for homes in a blackout—another really cool advantage of EVs that we’re already starting to see promoted by companies like Ford with its F-150 Lightning electric pick-up truck.

EV batteries also have the potential to provide a backup generator for homes in a blackout.

Ice.  I’m about to cry “uncle” and go out and buy an EV now.  But we still need to talk about the disadvantages of EVs.  You’ve talked about many positives—performance, convenience of charging, reliability, and lower operating costs—even serving as a backup battery for blackouts.  What about the downsides?

Evie.  OK, let’s get to the challenges.  I don’t want to call them disadvantages.  All of them are really what I would call transition challenges to work through—not disadvantages that are inherent in being electric.  In fact, I would argue that EVs are better in every way, and that any issues are only temporary, and certain not a “downside” that we will have to live with indefinitely.

The issues associated with EVs are really transition challenges to work through—not disadvantages that are inherent in EVs. 

But before we get to those issues, I’m sorry, but I forgot to mention another advantages of EVs.

Ice.  Seriously?  Haven’t you made your point already?

Evie.  Well, I think this advantage is worth mentioning quickly because it’s another example that makes my overarching point: not only is what you think you know about EVs wrong, it may be the opposite of the truth.

Ice.  OK, go ahead.  You’re going to anyway, right?

Evie.  Safety.  EVs have an inherent safety advantage.  This one is sort of like reliability in that the safety of a car depends on the details of the particular design.  You can make a safe gasoline car, and you can make an unsafe EV.  But EVs have one big inherent advantage in designing for safety.  And that is this.  In addition to being less complex and more reliable, the electric motor in an EV is much smaller than the engine in a gas car.  That means there is less mass pushing into the passenger compartment in an accident.  In addition, many EVs have what’s called a “frunk”—a trunk in the front—and that space creates a crumble zone in the front to absorb the energy in a crash.  There have been spectacular crashes in EVs where the people have walked away with only minor injuries.  Again, all this depends on the details of a design for a particular vehicle, but there’s an inherent safety advantage in EVs.

Ice.  OK, since you brought up safety, how about battery fires?

Evie.  Yes, I was coming to that.  Let’s start with the fact that any vehicle with the energy needed to propel a multi-ton object for hundreds of miles is going to have a potential for fires—combustion when there’s an impact or something else goes wrong.  And those fires can be quite spectacular because there is a lot of energy in either a gas tank or an EV battery. 

This issue is like the general safety issue in that the potential for fires depends on the details of the design.  There can be car fires in gasoline cars with poor design, or in horrific impacts, and there can be battery fires in EVs.  The degree of risk depends on how well the vehicle is designed.

But overall, the big-picture point is that we now have enough experience with EVs to have some good data on how frequently fires occur.  Recent data from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) show that there are 1500 fires per 100,000 sales of gasoline cars.  The comparable number for EVs?  Only 25 fires per 100,000. 

Most people will probably react to these numbers with incredulity.  What about all those battery fires we’ve heard about in the news?  The reason you hear about the EV fires is that EVs are novel, and therefore battery fires are portrayed prominently in the news.  In contrast, a fire in a gasoline-fueled car is generally not newsworthy.

Moreover, the EV fires we’ve seen in recent years tend to be associated with design flaws resulting from the inexperience of many automakers in designing and building EVs and their battery packs.  As they gain more experience, we can expect even fewer problems.  And new battery designs on the horizon promise even less risk of fires.

Safety is another plus for EVs—both in terms of protection in a crash and the risk of fires.

So overall, safety is definitely a plus for EVs—both in terms of protection in a crash and the risk of fires.

Ice.  OK.  Can we now discuss the disadvantages of EVs?

Evie.  You mean the transition challenges?

Ice.  Sure.  “Transition challenges.”

Evie.  OK.  As we’ve discussed, there is a long list of advantages offered by EVs.  Better performance.  Charging convenience.  Better reliability and lower operating costs.  Support for the new electric grid.  And inherent safety advantages.

Having said that, there are also some challenges, which, as I’ve argued, tend to be temporary transition challenges rather than permanent downsides of switching to electric cars.  My list of transition challenges would include the following.  First, the biggest challenges—right now—are the high sticker price of most EVs and the limited variety of models.

The biggest challenges—right now—are the high sticker price of most EVs and the limited variety of models. 

And closely associated with the sticker price challenge is the limited production capacity for the batteries needed for EVs.  The constraints on battery production, and their costs, are also the source of the sticker price challenge for the vehicles.  Again, none of these challenges are permanent.  They’re transition challenges as the EV revolution gains momentum and the auto industry shifts its production capacity.

Ice.  OK, let’s get into these issues.

Evie.  Before we get into the details, let me add a couple of other items to the list of challenges.  We’ve talked about some of the charging issues, especially for people without private garages, though I’ve been arguing the concern about charging is overblown.  But clearly we need to build more chargers, both fast chargers along the highways and chargers at apartment complexes, hotels, and workplaces.

Ice.  Are you going to mention range anxiety?

Evie.  Of course.  No discussion of EVs would be complete without mentioning range anxiety.  Range is an issue for EVs, but like the charging issue, I think the range anxiety thing is over blown.  Having said that, it’s true that most EVs have less range than gasoline-powered cars.  And you combine that with less dense charging infrastructure in some parts of the country, and you can get range anxiety.  Just to quickly address the range issue, this is clearly a transition issue as batteries get better and range gets longer, and as there are more fast chargers all the time. 

Range is an issue for EVs, but like the charging issue, range anxiety is over blown.  Range is a transition issue as batteries get better and range gets longer, and as there are more fast chargers all the time. 

One point to note is that it’s possible to have range anxiety with a gas car.  In fact, I have experienced that in National Parks when the gas stations were limited.  I would even predict that, at some point in the future, as charging stations increase in number and gas station close because there are few gas cars on the roads, this issue is going to flip.  Owners of gas cars will start to have range anxiety.

Ice.  I want to come back to range.  But let’s start the discussion of these challenges by talking about the sticker price problem.

Evie.  Sure.  Of all things holding back the electric transition, I would say that the high upfront cost is the biggest one, and the one that is most real, as opposed to all the overblown concerns about things like charging.  EVs are still more expensive to buy, especially if you’re looking for something with enough range for road tripping.  They can easily cost $40 to $60 thousand.  Even with the Federal tax credit, which can take $7500 off the price, EVs are still more expensive than a similar gas car.  That’s especially a challenge for people who don’t have high incomes.  For those people, a higher upfront cost is a serious obstacle to buying an EV, and getting a tax credit several months later may not seem like much help.  Yes, there are significant operating cost savings down the road, but that doesn’t help buy the car.

EVs are still more expensive to buy, especially if you’re looking for something with enough range for road tripping.  The big issue is the cost of batteries, but battery technologies are getting better every year.

As I said, the Federal tax credit, which has been extended, does help.  But EV costs need to come down.  And that means battery costs, which are the only reason EVs cost more.  The rest of the car actually costs less to make.  Electric motors are cheaper to make than very complex internal combustion engines, and EVs have fewer components.  But with battery costs still in the range of $100 to $150 per kilowatt-hour of capacity, we’re still looking at fuel “tanks” costing around $10,000.  That’s what drives the cost.  Fortunately, battery technologies are constantly improving, so we can expect their costs to keep coming down—and ranges to get better.  But it’s a gradual thing, and it may take a few years before EVs cost about the same as gas cars.

Ice.  Yeah, you can’t find an EV for the $25,000 to $30,000 price of a Prius.

Evie.  Well, actually, you can come pretty close, especially with the tax credit.  And I’m not sure you can get a Prius for $25,000 anymore with the recent inflation. 

The more expensive EVs are in the 300-mile class for range.  But for a commuter car, or a second car for local driving, an EV with 200-250 miles of range is fine.  And you can find a number of those for around $30,000 to $35,000.  Take off $7500 for the tax credit, and that works pretty well in terms of the upfront economics. 

We’ll come back to the range issue, but most people think they need 400-500 miles of range, like they’re used to with their gas cars.  But you really don’t that much range for many uses.  And you can save a lot of money if you’re willing to live with a little less range.

Ice.  OK, so upfront cost is a real concern.  What else?

Evie.  The other big issue right now, in addition to sticker cost, is model availability.  This is clearly a transition issue, as more and more models are available every year. 

The other big issue right now, in addition to sticker cost, is model availability.  This is clearly a transition issue, as more and more models are available every year. 

We’re even seeing new classes of EVs coming out now—most significantly, pickup trucks, which are one of the most popular types of vehicle in America.  Even so, you still can’t get anything you want in electric.  For example, there are still no all-electric minivans.  And many models are still available only with a gas engine.  People like the cars they’re used to.  Some people just like Ford Explorers, or Suburbans, or any number of other particular models.  And right now, you can’t get everything in an electric version.  But it’s coming in the next few years.  And it will come faster if consumers tell the auto dealers they want their next Explorer to be electric.  But it’s a limitation right now.

We’re even seeing new classes of EVs coming out now—most significantly, pickup trucks, which are one of the most popular types of vehicle in America.  Even so, you still can’t get anything you want in electric.

Ice.  Wait, come back to your point about consumers.  Aren’t they limited by what the auto companies make?

Evie.  Sure, in the short run.  But one of my points is that consumers—average citizens—have a bigger role in the electric transition than they might realize. 

Consumers—average citizens—have a bigger role in the electric transition than they might realize.  The auto companies will shift to EVs when consumer preferences shift. 

We live in a free enterprise capitalist society—and I’m glad we do.  Some people blame capitalism for all our problems, including the climate crisis.  But I have a different view.  I think capitalism is the solution to the climate problem.  We’re going to need to build enormous numbers of new electric machines, along with the solar, wind, and other clean energy to power them.  And the best way to do that is to unleash the power of the free enterprise system to get to work on that task, making millions of new electric machines.

Ice.  OK, sure, but, again, people can only buy what the auto companies have in the showrooms.

Evie.  That’s true, at least in the short run.  But the auto companies will shift when consumer preferences shift.  Look at SUVs.  That’s what most people want—the space and convenience of an SUV.  So that’s what the auto companies make.  A few years ago, Ford even shifted almost entirely away from regular cars to SUVs like the Explorer and the Escape.  The same will happen if people demand EVs. 

Here’s a thought experiment for you.  What if everyone started going into their favorite car dealer—let’s stick with Ford for now.  And they drive to the local Ford dealer in their 10-year-old Explorer to see the latest model.  And they take a test drive of the latest Explorer with all its improvements and new features.  And then, after the test drive, they say to the salesperson, “this is great, I love it, but when will it be available in electric because that’s all I’m going to buy from now on?”  If consumers started doing that, the auto companies would shift their production to EVs at a pace that would make your head spin. 

Consider the following thought experiment.  What would happen if, after test drives, consumers started saying to auto dealers, “when will this model be available in electric because that’s all I’m going to buy from now on?”  If consumers started doing that, the auto companies would shift their production to EVs at a pace that would make your head spin. 

Look at what we did in World War II, when America became the arsenal of democracy.  Granted, that was done under wartime orders from the Federal government, but the shift from civilian to military production—and the numbers of vehicles produced in just three or four years—was incredible.  My argument is that consumers can have a similar impact on the availability of electric models if they make their voices heard.

Ice.  Fair enough, but doesn’t the government have to make the auto companies shift to EVs?

Evie.  There’s a role for government in putting in place the right market incentives.  And we did that with the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, which not only extended consumer tax credits for buying EVs—not only new ones, but used ones for the first time—but also included incentives to help the industry shift to electric vehicles.  That was a really important accomplishment, and maybe more needs to be done. 

But the key ingredient at this point is going to be consumer demand signals.  Those tax credits won’t do much good if people don’t use them to buy EVs.  And the auto companies are certainly not going to rapidly shift production to EVs if people don’t buy them.  Their pace of transition will definitely be affected by consumer demand.

The key ingredient at this point is going to be consumer demand signals.  The tax credits in the Inflation Reduction Act won’t do much good if people don’t use them to buy EVs.  It is illogical to expect that, in a democracy, the government can force the automakers to shift to EVs if the consumers—otherwise known as voters—don’t want to buy them. 

Moreover, it is illogical to expect that, in a democracy, the government can force the automakers to shift to EVs if the consumers—otherwise known as voters—don’t want to buy them.  So again, consumers have a key role to play in the transition, and we can’t expect the government to magically make it happen for us.

Ice.  I forget what the question was at this point…

Evie.  We were just talking about one of the key transition challenges—the availability of a complete range of electric models—and I was making the point that the actions of consumers will have a big impact on how fast that problem is overcome.

Ice.  OK, so I’ll grant you the point that EV model availability is getting better and will continue to get better.  So that’s clearly a transition issue, as you say.  But let’s come back to range.  Is the shorter range of EVs an obstacle to the transition you’re talking about?

Evie.  The range issue is closely associated with the cost issue.  It’s all about the batteries.  Progress in battery technologies will both lower the sticker price of EVs and extend their range.  There’s been a trend of improving battery energy density and lowering cost for many years, and there’s every reason to believe that will continue.  In fact, with all the research on battery technologies going on now, there’s even the possibility of major step improvements, rather than just steady but gradual improvements.  Technologies like solid state batteries or new chemistries.

Ice.  Makes sense.  I can believe that.  But what about range for people who want to buy EVs now?  Why should people buy a new car that doesn’t go as far as the gas car they have now?  How does that make EVs better, as you have argued?  And why shouldn’t people just wait until there’s an affordable 400-mile Ford Explorer?

Evie.  Good question.  You’re right, the concern over range is probably one of the main reasons lots of people are holding off on switching to electric cars.  So let me make a few points.

Concern over range is probably one of the main reasons lots of people are holding off on switching to electric cars.  Even though more range is better, the 300-mile range provided by today’s EVs is, in one sense, enough.  Even the lowest-end EVs have ranges of 200-250 miles—plenty for everything except long-range road trips.  And if you have that magic electric “gas pump” in your garage, it’s very unlikely range will be an issue because the “tank” will be full every morning.  How much range is enough depends on what you’re using the car for.

First, let me just grant upfront that more range is better.  Just like money—or hard disk space in the early days of PCs—more is better.  I mentioned that 27,000-mile road trip we took to the National Parks.  There were a few times when I would have liked to have a little more range—I would say 350 miles of highway range would have been nice, roughly 50 more miles.  But having said that, I also have to say that we made it.  We did the trip without ever running out of range, or even having a major issue.  And we traveled to some of the most remote places of the country.  So, as we said during our trip, if we can go to all the National Parks in the Lower 48 states, you can go anything in an EV.  We didn’t want to just assert that EVs are ready for prime time.  We wanted to show it by doing it.

So I guess that was my second point.  Even though more range is better, the 300-mile range provided by today’s EVs is, in one sense, enough.

The third point I want to make about range goes back to the discussion we had on charging.  I talked about the different paradigm for charging vs fueling—that you charge when you’re parked to do something else.  And once that light goes off in your head, that affects not just your thinking about charging times.  It also affects how you think about range. 

Let me make the point with an extreme example.  Our first EV was a 2014 Nissan Leaf.  When I first test drove a Leaf, I immediately fell in love with the acceleration you get from an EV, but I didn’t buy one then.  I looked at the 84-mile range on the window sticker and said to myself, “that’s crazy, that’s like buying a car with a 2-gallon gas tank—why would anyone do that?”  But after I thought about it for a while—and I will admit that I was an early adopter because I felt so strongly about the environmental mandate to get off fossil fuels—I realized that 84 miles would be plenty for a second car that’s used only for commuting and local driving.  And that proved to be true.  Range was never an issue, because most daily driving is within 50 miles of home.

Going back to the connection to charging, here’s the real point I wanted to make.  It wasn’t just that the 2-gallon gas tank was enough for local driving.  The limited range was also a non-issue because that 2-gallon tank was magically refilled every night in my garage, without ever having to go to a gas station.  And that magic made the limited range even less of a concern.

My 84-mile-range Leaf is an extreme example of the point I’m trying to make because today you can’t buy an EV with range that low.  Even the lowest-end EVs have ranges of 200-250 miles.  And that’s plenty for everything except long-range road trips.  More to the point, if you have that magic electric “gas pump” in your garage, it’s very unlikely range will be an issue because the “tank” will be full every morning.

Ice.  It sounds like you’re also arguing that the question of how much range is enough depends on what you use your car for.

Evie.  Exactly.  I guess that was going to be my fourth point about range, if I’m counting right.  Exactly as you say, how much range is enough depends on what you’re using the car for. 

This is no different than other purposes we have in mind when we buy cars.  If we’re a single person, we don’t need a Suburban that can carry seven people and lots of stuff.  A smaller car is fine.  Buying the more expensive Suburban would be a waste of money for that person’s purposes. 

It’s the same with EV range.  If you’re buying a second car for commuting and local errands, a 200-250-mile EV is more than enough.  You’d be wasting money to buy a more expensive 300-plus mile EV.  But if you do lots of road trips or long-distance driving, you need a car with 300 miles or more of range.  And if you’re someone who tows a trailer or wants to drive 700 miles in a day without stopping to eat, you probably need an EV with 400 miles or more of range.  So it depends on what you use the car for.  But for most people, the ranges offered by today’s EVs are enough.  And they’re only going to get better as batteries improve.

Ice.  Any other points about range?

Evie.  Yeah, before we leave the topic, because we’re talking about transition challenges of going electric, I do want to make a couple of points about why a little more range is good—that is, for the road-trip use case.

Ice.  But you said your 300-mile EV was enough to do even the stressing case of a National Park trip?

Evie.  True, but as mentioned, there were times when a little more range would have been useful, for a few reasons. 

There are times when a little more range would be useful.  First, the advertised 300-miles range doesn’t hold up at today’s highway speeds.  Second, the battery is happier over the long term if you don’t jam it full of electrons all the time.  Third, extremely cold weather temporarily reduces battery capacity. 

First, the advertised 300-miles range doesn’t hold up at today’s highway speeds.  When you travel at 75 or 80 miles per hour, as we saw on many highways during our trip around America, you’re not going to get 300 miles. 

Second, the battery is happier over the long term if you don’t jam it full of electrons all the time.  And fast-charging rates slow as the battery gets closer to full.  For those two reasons, you’re better off charging to only around 80 percent—for battery health and time spent at charging stations.  So that 300 miles of potential range can become 250 miles of actual range in the battery that isn’t fully charged. 

Third, although we didn’t experience this on our trip, which took place from April to October, extremely cold weather temporarily reduces battery capacity. 

If you combine all those factors, there’s a case for ranges of 350 to 400 miles.  Of course, you pay for that in higher cost, but better batteries should provide that in the coming years.

Ice.  I was going to ask about cold weather.

Evie.  Yes, it’s a factor.  How much depends, of course, on how cold and the engineering built into the battery pack.  Tesla, for example, builds into their battery packs good temperature control systems.  In addition, if you live in cold areas, you can precondition the battery pack before leaving home while you’re still plugged into your charger.  Despite the impacts of cold weather on batteries, it’s not like that is a show-stopper for EVs.  The highest rate of EV adoption in the world, by far, is Norway, where 80 percent of new cars were electric in 2022.  That’s not exactly a warm climate.

The highest rate of EV adoption in the world, by far, is Norway, where 80 percent of new cars were electric in 2022.  That’s not exactly a warm climate.

Ice.  Anything else on range before we move to a few last topics on my list?

Evie. Well, just to finish up with the connection between charging and range.  Lower-than-ideal range obviously becomes less of a concern if you have a denser fast-charging network. 

Lower-than-ideal range obviously becomes less of a concern if you have a denser fast-charging network. 

In the cases where we would have liked to have more range on our 27,000-mile electric road trip, we were in places where there are longer distances between chargers.  Tesla, for their Supercharger network, tries to have stations no more than 150 miles apart—less in areas of higher density like California.  When we get to fast-charger spacing of 50 miles or less, which will happen soon for both Superchargers and CCS fast chargers, range anxiety goes away.

Ice.  I guess I did have one more question related to range.  What actually happens when you get to zero on an EV’s battery indicator?  Does the car brick by the side of the road?

Evie.  Well, fortunately, we have never experienced that with either of our EVs.  But I’ve seen videos where people did it on purpose to see what happens.  My recollection is that the car went a few miles even after hitting zero, though it slowed down.  So there’s a little safety margin to get to a charging station.  But the moral of the story is the same as for gas cars: don’t let it get to that point!

Ice.  OK, but what happens if you do run out by the side of the road?  You can’t walk to the nearest gas station and return with a gas can.  So how is that going to work with EVs?

Evie.  Great question, and glad you asked!  That was something I wanted to cover because there was a really awful opinion column in the paper a while back about that scenario.  It was a great example of the lazy reporting and lack of factual research that you see in so much of the mainstream media reporting on EVs.  I forget the name of the columnist, but he’s nobody you’ve probably heard of.  His scenario revolved around the big, sudden snowstorm we had in the northern Virginia area a couple of years ago.  Hundreds of cars got stranded on Interstate 95 for more than 24 hours.  And apparently, there was at least one EV in the mess of cars that ran out of battery, though I’m not sure that was ever verified.  Anyway, this columnist took that fact—or I should, that possible occurrence—and made it into a horror story about how EVs weren’t ready for prime time.

There were so many problems with his scenario, but the two big ones were, first, faulty logic—or really just a ridiculous argument—and, second, lack of knowledge about how EVs work.  His scenario was that in some future world, all the cars stuck on the highway in this snowstorm would be EVs and they would run out of battery and there would be no way to quickly clear them from the highway.  Well, the logic problem was that, in his future world, we would have converted to EVs but no one would have ever thought about having mobile chargers for such a situation.  In fact, those already exist, and I’m going to go out on a limb and say that if everyone is driving EVs in the future, AAA will probably put some mobile chargers on their tow trucks.  Not to mention that they could just tow the EVs with dead batteries to a nearby charging stations.

But the big problem with this guy’s scenario was his failure to do even the most minimal research on EVs in cold weather.  He was eviscerated in the comment section of the paper for his ignorance.  It turns out that EVs would be much better off than gasoline-powered cars in this mess on the highway in a snowstorm. 

EVs would be better off than gasoline-powered cars if stuck on a highway in a winter snowstorm.  An EV can keep its passengers warm far longer than an idling gas car. 

In fact, some research had been done on how long an EV could keep its passengers warm if stuck in a winter storm.  It depends, of course, on the EV and its battery size and percentage of charge entering the snowstorm, as well as the car’s heating system.  For example, Tesla now has heat pumps in its cars that are much more energy efficient, and most EVs have seat heaters, which use even less energy than warming the whole passenger cabin.  Anyway, the short version is that an EV could keep its passengers warm far longer than an idling gas car.  And that makes perfect sense because EVs have enormous amounts of energy in their batteries relative to the energy needed for heating, whereas an internal combustion engine will burn through a tank of gas in a few hours.  If this guy had done even five minutes of research for his column, he would have known that.

Ice.  Wow, I can see I triggered you with that question.  But back to the question of what happens if an EV runs out of juice, your answer is a portable charger to get to the nearest charging station or a tow?

Evie.  Sorry.  Yes, that’s the short answer.  I would just add that in the future, there will be a lot more charging stations.  In the future where all cars are electric, we should expect to see a charging station at every highway exit.  In fact, what I would like to see is fast chargers at every fast food restaurant off the highways—every McDonalds, every Subway, etc.

Ice.  OK, thanks.  Let’s talk about battery life.  You mentioned before I triggered you with the question about running out of juice in cold weather that batteries are happier if they’re charged to less than full.  And in the beginning of our conversation you mentioned that EV batteries are not like the ones in our cell phones, which last only a few years.  Isn’t this one of the big reasons people are hesitant to make the switch to electric—facing the prospect of a multi-thousand-dollar battery replacement a few years down the road?

Evie.  That is definitely a concern I hear a lot.  While electric motors are very proven and reliable, people have less confidence about the batteries.  That is a concern that definitely needs to be addressed.

The first thing I would say is to repeat a point I made earlier about charging to less than 100 percent.  Some of the battery life question is under the control of the user.  If you take good care of your battery and don’t abuse it, you’ll get better battery life.

Some of the battery life question is under the control of the user.  If you take good care of your battery and don’t abuse it, you’ll get better battery life.  Longevity can also be better or worse depending on the particular automaker and vehicle engineering. 

This is also something—like reliability and safety, which we talked about earlier—that can be better or worse depending on the particular automaker and the vehicle engineering.  There were some early Leafs that did not do well in hot climates because Nissan did not provide liquid cooling for the battery packs.  As I mentioned earlier, Tesla does a much better job of that, which helps protect battery life.  In addition to temperature control, the particular chemistries in the batteries can make a big difference.  Just as batteries are becoming more energy dense and less expensive, their longevity is also being improved through advanced chemical engineering.

We also have some data on the battery longevity question now—principally from the Tesla Model S cars that have been on the road for about a decade.  What that tends to show is that there is some loss of battery capacity in the first few years—generally in the 5-10 percent range, and then it levels off.  There are outliners where the loss is worse, but that’s the general pattern.  And for the outliers, the automakers provide warranties—typically to 70 percent of capacity for several years.

Data on battery longevity show that there is some loss of battery capacity in the first few years—generally in the 5-10 percent range, and then it levels off out to 200,000 miles of operation.  So most people will not be looking at battery replacement risk for the typical period of vehicle ownership.

Ice.  Well, that sounds like a potential problem—if you had to replace the battery after several years?

Evie.  Again, the data we have now show that the battery-capacity curves tend to level out after losing a few percent and then continue fairly level for up to 200,000 miles.  So I think most people will not be looking at battery replacement risk for the typical period of vehicle ownership.  But it is possible at some point if you keep your cars for many years.  What I would say about that possibility is that’s not so different than a gas car.  When you get to the point where you have to replace things like timing belts or other major items in an internal combustion engine, you can be looking at repair bills of several thousand dollars.  That’s when people typically decide to buy a new car. 

With an EV, the good thing is, even if you have to replace a battery pack after many years, the long life of an electric motor means that you’re going to have a reliable car for many more years to come.  I haven’t heard of lots of batteries having to be replaced yet, but if that starts to happen in the future, the new batteries should be getting cheaper, and there might even be a recycling market for the old battery pack.

Ice.  OK, I think we’ve covered most of the big topics, but let’s go back and pick up some of the details on topics we skipped over.

Evie.  OK, shoot—let’s go.

Ice.  We talked a lot about charging, but we really didn’t talk about types of chargers.  That’s a mystery to most people who haven’t used an EV.  And isn’t it kind of a mess?

Evie.  Well, here’s the short version on types of chargers.  There are three types of chargers—or what are called levels—that relate to how fast the charger works.  The part about levels of charging is less complicated than it seems.  But there’s some added complication from the fact that there is not a single charging standard in the US.  To oversimplify a little, there are two charging standards, or plugs—one for Tesla and one for everyone else in North America.  (As an aside, there’s actually a third standard for fast charging, which was used in the Nissan Leaf, but that’s going away, so I’m going to leave that additional complication aside.)

There are three types of chargers—or what are called levels—that relate to how fast the charger works.  And there are two charging standards, or plugs—one for Tesla and one for everyone else in North America. 

Ice.  OK, so talk about the levels first.

Evie.  Right.  The levels are just the speed of charging and basically correspond to the voltage.  The charger in my house is what’s called a Level 2 charger, which operates on a dedicated 240-volt circuit.  That’s like the circuit your clothes dryer or oven operates on.  It can charge a car in a few to several hours, depending on how low the battery is and the amps in the circuit., which typically might vary from 30 to 50 amps.  With Level 2 charging, you can get a range of numbers, depending on both the car and the amps in the circuit, but a reasonable number is roughly 25 miles of range per hour—less with a low-amp circuit or more with a high-amp circuit.  The simplest way to think about Level 2 chargers is that they will charge your EV overnight, even if the battery is near empty. 

With Level 2 charging, you get roughly 25 miles of range per hour—enough to charge your EV overnight. 

Level 1 charging is basically the same thing, except you plug the charger into a regular 120-volt household outlet.  That will give you only about 4-5 miles of range per hour. 

Level 1 charging is basically the same thing as Level 2, except you plug the charger into a regular 120-volt household outlet.  That will give you only about 4-5 miles of range per hour—useful in some situations. 

Before our road trip to the National Parks, I used to think Level 1 was basically useless and not worth talking about.  But we used it a few times at parks that didn’t have chargers, and you can get 50-70 miles of range from the afternoon to the next morning, and that was very useful in those situations—enough to power our driving within the park the next day.  Also, if you travel only 30 miles or so a day in your local driving, a Level 1 charger will replace that overnight without the need for a 240-volt circuit for a Level 2 charger.

Ice.  OK, that’s fairly straightforward.  But you’ve been talking about electrical circuits.  What about the chargers themselves?

Evie.  Let me come back to that when I talk about the different standards, which basically have to do with the type of plug that you plug into your car’s charging port.  But whether it’s a Tesla and another EV, the charger can be a unit you attach to the wall in your garage or it can be a mobile charger, which most automakers provide with the EV.  It’s just that the plugs that attach to the port on your car are different.

Ice.  Well, that’s dumb.  Why don’t we have a standard plug?

Evie.  Having more than one standard is certainly less than ideal, but we got to where we are for historical reasons.  And there are solutions in the form of adaptors, which I’ll come back to when we cover the two standards.

Ice.  OK, you talked about Level 2 and Level 1 chargers, but those aren’t the ones people use when they want a quick charge on the highway, right?

Evie.  Right, for that we’re talking about what I call, generically, fast chargers—also called DC Fast Chargers.  That’s Level 3.  Those are basically 480-volt chargers with very high power—much more electrical power than you’d find in a typical household circuit. 

Fast chargers, which operate at 480 volts, are usually categorized by the amount of kilowatts they can pump into a battery—currently between about 150 and 350 kilowatts.

Fast chargers are usually categorized by the amount of kilowatts they can pump into a battery.  Some of the early ones were rated at 50 kilowatts, which was enough to charge something like the Nissan Leaf and its relatively small battery.  By the time you got to Tesla’s fast chargers, the Superchargers, those were operating at 120 kilowatts, and then 150, and now the latest ones are at 250 kilowatts.  Some of the other fast chargers are rated as high as 350 kilowatts.

Ice.  So how fast can those charge a car?

Evie.  Well, you would think that a 250-kilowatt Supercharger could charge my car, which has a battery somewhere in the range of 78 kilowatt-hours capacity, in about 15-20 minutes—roughly a third of an hour—right?  But the limitation is how fast the battery can take electrons as it gets filled.  To protect the battery from overheating and damage, the charging slows down considerably as the battery gets more and more full.  So you’re only pumping electrons at a rate of 250 kilowatts for the first several minutes. 

Fast chargers are limited by how fast the car battery can take electrons as it gets filled.  Charging slows down considerably as the battery gets more and more full.  That’s the main reason people usually fast-charge to only about 80 percent before moving on. 

That’s the main reason people usually fast-charge to only about 80 percent before moving on.  The last 20 percent takes much more time, and it’s not worth the time unless there’s no charger where you’re going.  In any case, for fast charging, you’re talking about times of 20-30 minutes or so. 

There are diminishing returns for faster charging both because there are constraints on the rates of filling batteries and because a stop for lunch or rest is probably going to take longer than 20 minutes anyway.

Earlier, we talked about fast charging getting faster, with higher kilowatt ratings.  As I said before, faster is better.  But there’s a limit on how much benefit faster speeds provide.  There are diminishing returns both because there are constraints on the rates of filling batteries and because a stop for lunch or rest is probably going to take longer than 20 minutes anyway.

Ice.  OK, I think I’ve got the levels—1 and 2 for charging overnight or other long periods, and Level 3 for fast charging.  Now what about the different standards, or types of plugs?

Evie.  Let’s do Tesla’s standard first, because I actually think it’s the better of the two.  Tesla vehicles have a relatively small port for inserting the charging plug.  And the nice thing about it is that the charging plug is basically the same for the Level 2 charger and a Supercharger.  It’s also a relatively elegant-looking design, if you care about such things. 

For Level 2 charging, you can buy a wall charger from Tesla that has the Tesla plug, or you can use the mobile charger that comes with the car.  Or I should say, used to come with the car.  I think Tesla makes you buy the mobile charger separately now, which is kind of cheap, but I assume everyone buys one.

As an aside, Tesla’s mobile charger comes with a 120-volt plug for connecting to a standard household outlet, but you can buy a 240-volt plug for faster charging—the most common plug being what’s called NEMA 14-50.  Those are the kinds used at most RV campsites.  Tesla also sells a whole set of different plugs for different kinds of other 240-volt outlets—for example, the ones used for clothes dryers.  That’s what we did, and we actually used a dryer outlet one time on our National Parks trip.  What I’d like to see is Tesla and all the EV makers standardize on the 14-50 240-volt plug along with the standard 120-volt plug and provide those with the mobile chargers that come with EVs.

If you’re staying in a hotel with a Tesla Level 2 charger, they’re called Destination Chargers, which is a pretty descriptive name.  The nice thing about Destination Chargers is that they show up on Tesla’s website so you can find hotels where you can charge overnight.  Tesla will give Destination Chargers to hotels if they apply for them.  That’s a smart strategy because it allows Tesla to build the overnight charging network, while it helps the hotels attract customers.  Most of the hotels we stayed in during our National Parks trip had Destination Chargers, and almost all of them provided free charging.

So that’s the story for Level 2 charging for Tesla.

For fast charging, Tesla’s Superchargers are really the gold standard.  They are incredibly easy to use.  You just back into the parking space—that’s actually the hard part for me—and plug the Supercharger into the car’s charging port.  The car has a Tesla account, and the charging starts right after you plug in, with the electricity you use automatically billed to the credit card on your account. 

For fast charging, Tesla’s Superchargers are really the gold standard.  They are easy to use. They are reliable. They are open 24/7 and well located near rest stops and restaurants. The Superchargers are truly a nationwide network, able to support travel to every corner of the country.

The Superchargers are also incredibly reliable.  We ran into essentially no down chargers in more than 100 Supercharging stops over six months.  We encountered one that was temporarily down along the Oregon coast, but that experience actually illustrated how good the Supercharger network is.  The car navigation system automatically notified us on the screen that the station had gone offline.  So we called the Tesla road service number to get more information.  They already knew about the problem and had dispatched a repair team.  By the time we reached the station, it was back online, though we no longer needed it because we had stopped for lunch at a place with several Destination Chargers.  That’s pretty impressive for system network reliability.

 Superchargers are open 24/7.  They are usually well located near rest stops and restaurants.  And each station usually has 8 to 12 or more chargers, so it is unlikely to run into a situation where all the units are being used.  We never encountered a full station during our trip, though that problem does sometimes occur in areas like California with lots of Tesla cars. Tesla is addressing that problem by building more stations all the time, some of them with dozens of charging units. 

The Superchargers are truly a nationwide network, able to support travel to every corner of the country.  The few remaining gaps are being filled in rapidly as the network is expanded. 

The other nice thing about Superchargers is that the Tesla navigation system in the car is integrated with them, so the car will tell you the best places to charge along your route.

The Tesla plug is sometime called a proprietary standard, and it is in the sense that Tesla developed it.  But it’s not proprietary in the sense that it is open for anyone else to use.  And in fact, Tesla has proposed that it should become the North American Charging Standard, or NACS.  I actually agree with that, and would love to see that happen.  Unfortunately, absent a government fiat, we’re probably too far down the road with other automakers having already built lots of cars with the CCS plug.

Ice.  OK, so talk about the other standard?

Evie.  Well, let me warn you that both the hardware and the terminology get a lot more klunky when we start talking about the other North American standard, which is actually the standard in the European Union by government fiat.  The Level 2 chargers are called J-1772 plugs.  All these names come from the standards committees that developed them, so that’s why you get such inelegant terminology. 

The J-1772 plugs are actually about the same size the Tesla plug, and Tesla provides a simple adaptor that allows a J-1772 charger to be plugged into a Tesla charge port on the car.  We actually did that about a dozen times during our road trip—along with 30 hotels and lodges with Tesla Destination Chargers.  So a Tesla can use any Level 2 charger—either a Tesla Destination Charger or a standard Level 2 J-1772 charger.

There are also third-party companies that make an adaptor to connect a Tesla Destination Charger into a J-1772 plug to use with EVs made by other automakers.

Ice.  What about the fast chargers for other EVs?

Evie.  As I’ve mentioned a couple of times in this discussion, the other fast chargers are called CCS—for Combined Charging Standard.  It’s “combined” because the standards committee took the J-1772 plug for Level 2 charging and added some additional connectors at the bottom to make it a fast charger plug able to pump electrons at 480 volts.  Again, the name is not particularly elegant, and the plug itself is kind of big and bulky, but it does the job.  And some CCS chargers are as fast as the latest 250 KW Superchargers—some even faster at 350 kilowatts. However, the CCS networks being built by several charging companies are not as far along in geographic coverage, reliability, or ease of use as the Supercharger network.

The other fast chargers are called CCS—for Combined Charging Standard.  The name is not particularly elegant, and the plug itself is kind of big and bulky, but it does the job.  However, the CCS networks being built by several charging companies are not as far along in geographic coverage, reliability, or ease of use as the Supercharger network.

Until recently, the Tesla Superchargers and the CCS fast chargers operated mostly in separate worlds.  But there’s movement toward a form of compatibility, if not standardization, driven by both the charging companies and the Federal government.  This form of compatibility is basically either dual plugs on a single charging unit or adaptors, like the ones Tesla has for using J-1772  chargers or CCS fast chargers. 

There’s movement toward a form of fast charger compatibility, if not standardization—either dual plugs on a single charging unit or adaptors.

Some of the third-party charging companies are starting to have fast chargers with both a CCS plug and a Tesla Supercharger plug.  And Tesla is now starting to do that with some of its Superchargers—driven by a Federal mandate in order to get access to the billions in funding for EV charging stations in the infrastructure bill that passed the Congress on a bipartisan basis in 2022.  That solution is a little more complicated than a standard plug, but it will allow universal access to all fast chargers for all EVs.

Some of the third-party charging companies are starting to have fast chargers with both a CCS plug and a Tesla Supercharger plug.  And Tesla is now starting to do that with some of its Superchargers.

The other compatibility solution is adaptors to convert one plug to the other.  Tesla has recently done this to allow its vehicles to use CCS fast chargers.  You can now buy an adaptor that enables a CCS fast charger to plug into the charging port on Tesla vehicles.  In fact, they recently lowered the price from $250 to $175 and I bought one.  With that adaptor, my Tesla can use any fast charger in the country—Superchargers or CCS fast chargers provided by Electrify America, EVGO, or ChargePoint.  And Tesla has now starting deploying Superchargers with something similar going in the other direction—from a Supercharger to a CCS port on an EV—so an EV from another automaker can use a Supercharger.  Not ideal compared to one standard plug, but this will greatly enhance access to fast chargers for everyone. 

The other compatibility solution is adaptors to convert one plug to the other.  Tesla is now selling an adaptor to allow its vehicles to use CCS fast chargers.  And Tesla has now started deploying Superchargers with something similar going in the other direction—from a Supercharger to a CCS port on an EV—so an EV from another automaker can use a Supercharger. 

Earlier, when I was discussing our road trip to the National Parks, I commented on the excellence of the Supercharger network and how it covers pretty much the entire country.  But we traveled to a couple of places on our trip where there were CCS fast chargers but no Superchargers—an example being southern Colorado.  We found solutions using Destination Chargers and Level 2 chargers at our hotels, but having access to CCS chargers would have been helpful.

Ice.  OK, thanks, that’s a great summary of the types of chargers, and I think I’ve got the big picture pretty well now.  As you say, it’s not ideal, but it looks like we’ll have a pretty good, and universally accessible, fast charging network before too long.

Evie.  Yup, that’s an even better summary.

Ice.  Alright, I think that’s enough on charging.  Let me now cover a few of the questions that typically come up in discussions of electric vehicles.  You mentioned this briefly in the beginning, but how do you respond to the critique that EVs aren’t really a solution to the pollution or climate problem—they just transfer the emissions to the electrical power grid?

Evie.  If you want a short answer, that’s just not true.

Ice.  How about the longer version?

Evie.  OK.  There are four reasons that’s not true—or maybe it’s five. 

The first point—the narrowest response to that critique—is that, at the very least, EVs eliminate air pollution in the local area where there are lots of cars—cities and suburbs.  The pollution from the power plants, if there is any, is typically much further away from the population centers.  So that’s a benefit right there. 

Until you’ve spent a lot of time in a city, you don’t realize how bad the air on the streets is.  We’ve made a lot of progress in reducing pollution from internal combustion engines, but it’s definitely not zero, and the emissions coming out the tailpipe are nasty stuff, and really bad for you. 

As a child of the 1960s, when we were supposed to have flying cars and fusion power in the 21^st century, it is somewhat incredible to me that we think it’s still OK to be driving around in cars that burn fossil fuels and dump pollution into the air we breathe.

EVs eliminate air pollution in the local area where there are lots of cars—cities and suburbs. 

A second point is that any number of studies have been done by reputable, objective scientific organizations showing that net pollution is reduced by EVs even in the places where the grid is the dirtiest.

A number of studies have been done by reputable, objective scientific organizations showing that net pollution is reduced by EVs even in the places where the grid is the dirtiest.

That then leads to the third and main point—which is how much the grid has already been cleaned up and how much cleaner it’s going to get in the next decade.  Most people’s impression of the electric grid is seriously out of date.  A typical impression is that the grid is dominated by coal.  But you have to go back to 2010 for a time when that was true.  As of early 2023, coal is down to less than 20 percent of the energy sources powering the electric grid, and it’s continuing to decline rapidly.  In fact, renewables have now passed coal as percent of the energy sources powering our electricity.  When you include nuclear power, which powers about one-fifth of the grid, non-carbon sources are now more than 40 percent.  In some states, such as Washington and Vermont, the grid is already dominated by clean sources. 

The electric grid has already been cleaned up a lot, and it’s going to get much cleaner in the next decade.  Renewables, the cheapest source of new electricity, have now passed coal as a percent of the energy powering the grid.   Together with nuclear power, which powers about one-fifth of the grid, non-carbon sources are now more than 40 percent. 

Nationwide, most of the new generating capacity is from renewables, mostly solar and wind.  That trend will continue because wind and solar energy are now the cheapest sources of new electrical generating capacity, resulting in a grid generating fewer and fewer emissions every year.  That means that an EV bought this year will get cleaner and cleaner over its service life—something a gas-powered car can’t do.

Nationwide, most of the new generating capacity is from renewables, mostly solar and wind.  That trend will continue because wind and solar energy are now the cheapest sources of new electrical generating capacity, resulting in a grid generating fewer and fewer emissions every year.  That means that an EV bought this year will get cleaner and cleaner over its service life—something a gas-powered car can’t do.

This transformed energy system is the path to solving the climate crisis.  Electrify all our machines—not just vehicles, but also our space heating systems and other machines—and produce all our electricity with renewable and other non-carbon energy sources.

This transformed energy system is the path to solving the climate crisis.  Electrify all our machines—not just vehicles, but also our space heating systems and other machines—and produce all our electricity with renewable and other non-carbon energy sources.

The argument that EVs don’t reduce pollution because they need electricity to power them misses this whole picture.

There are a couple of other reasons that argument is wrong.  For one thing, lots of EVs owners have solar panels, so in those cases, the EVs are clearly not powered by electricity that generates pollution.

Lots of EVs owners have solar panels, so in those cases, the EVs are clearly not powered by electricity that generates pollution.

The other non-polluting source of electricity to power EVs is what Amory Lovins of a think tank called Rocky Mountain Institute called “negawatts.”  That’s a clever term for watts saved from efficiency—negative watts.  The great thing about negawatts is that they are almost always the cheapest, least polluting, and most quickly available electricity sources.

The other non-polluting source of electricity to power EVs is “negawatts”—watts saved from efficiency—negative watts. 

There are lots of opportunities to harvest negawatts.  For EV owners looking for negwatts in their homes, sources include lighting that has not yet been converted to LED bulbs, old refrigerators and other energy-inefficient appliances, poor insulation, and inefficient heating and cooling systems.

In our case, when we got our first EV, we were able to find enough electricity savings to charge it without using more electricity by installing LED lighting and getting rid of an old refrigerator in the garage.  Harvesting those negawatts meant that we eliminated the emissions from the gas car we replaced without increasing the emissions that might be associated with using more electricity.  That’s a real reduction in emissions.

Ice.  OK, but can everyone find efficiencies like you did—enough to charge their EVs?  And even if you could charge your EV without using more electricity, you still needed electricity to charge it, and there were emissions from that electricity, right?

Evie.  Well, everyone’s situation is different.  But overall, the current US energy system is loaded with massive amounts of inefficiency.  In fact, about two-thirds of the energy we use is wasted rather than put to use in delivering services.  You can see this in the energy flow charts produced by the Energy Department—specifically, one of the national laboratories, Lawrence Livermore Labs.  They have a great graphic that is worth a thousand words, but it shows how inefficient our current fossil fuel energy system is, and how many opportunities there are to harvest negawatts to power EVs.

The current US energy system is loaded with massive amounts of inefficiency—providing opportunities for efficiency gains to power EVs.  As shown graphically by the energy flow charts from the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, about two-thirds of the energy we use is wasted rather than put to use in delivering services.

Turning to the second part of your question, even if a particular household is already as energy efficient as possible, you go back to the point that the grid is rapidly moving toward zero carbon.  So in a few years it won’t really matter if you have to use more electricity to charge an EV.  It will be non-polluting, zero-carbon electricity.  And in my own case, that will also be true of the electricity we use in our home to charge our EV and run our other electric machines—much of which comes from nuclear power in Virginia where we live.

Ice.  Let’s go back to your example of an EV owner who installs solar panels on their home.  That sounds good, but aren’t there emissions from producing those solar panels?  … Wait, I see you’re doing a face plant as I ask that question.  Isn’t that a fair question—one that is often asked?

Evie.  Yes, it certainly is an argument that I’ve seen.  But the reason I was doing a face plant is because the question demonstrates a fundamental failure to “get it.”  Remember how we’re going to get out of the mess we’ve made by burning enormous quantities of fossil fuels.  We need to electrify all our machines and make all our electricity from renewable and other zero-carbon energy sources.  All our machines means all our machines.  And that will include the factories that will make solar panels, and the machines that mine the materials for them.  They will also be electrified and powered by zero-carbon electricity.  That will apply to factories making solar panels and the vehicles that mine the materials.

And even in the short run, before we achieve an all-electric economy, studies have shown that those solar panels will pay back the energy used to produce them in a couple of years.

Ice.  OK, I get the picture.  Since we’ve been talking about the electric grid, let’s talk about another issue that comes up with EVs.  Can the grid handle all the charging when we have millions of EVs trying to charge?  Won’t we need more electricity?

Evie. The short answers are, yes, the grid should be able to handle more EVs, and yes, we will need more electricity to power EVs—not to mention all the other electric machines we will be adding as part of the electrification transition.

On the first question, there are plenty of reasons to believe that the grid will be able to handle more EVs.  At the most basic level, one answer is a point I’ve made before…capitalism.  Sort of like the discussion of needing more chargers.  EVs will be good for business for utilities and other companies producing electricity, and I see no reason to believe they can’t handle more business and produce more electricity.

The electrical grid should be able to handle the charging demands from more EVs.  They represent a business opportunity for electric utilities and other companies that generate electricity.  There are lots of opportunities for efficiency gains.  And charging can be directed to periods of excess electricity capacity—at night now, and during the peak daytime hours in the future when there will be lots of solar power.

There’s also the point I made before about emissions.  The best source for electricity to charge EVs is negawatts—efficiency savings that reduce wasted electricity use.  As I’ve discussed, that’s what we did to charge our EVs—without having to increase our overall electricity consumption.  To the extent people pursue that approach, the stress on the grid is minimized.  Also, the grid has traditionally been underused at night, so if people are charging at night at home, that may result in less pressure on the grid.

Of course, the situation with the grid will probably change in the future as we add more EVs and as we add lots of renewable energy sources.  In particular, we will probably have a lot of solar power, which peaks in the afternoon, so in the future excess electricity may be available during the day, instead of at night.  In that situation, it will make sense for people to charge their EVs during the day—perhaps at workplaces, or perhaps on weekend afternoons at home.  And as we discussed previously, EVs, with their enormous amount of battery capacity, may become a valuable source of stabilization for the grid, rather than a burden—absorbing excess electricity during peak solar production in the afternoon and potentially supplying power to the grid when needed at other times.

Ice.  But we’ll still need more electricity, right?

Evie.  Definitely.  That certainly comes with the territory in transitioning to an all-electric energy system, including our vehicles.  I’ve seen a few estimates and done a rough calculation of my own, and the best estimate is that we’ll need about three times the electricity we produce today—from our current production of 4,000 terrawatt-hours annually to 12,000.  Maybe somewhat less if we really enhance energy efficiency.  But that will be a lot less overall energy use—even if we use more electricity—because the efficiency of an all-electric system will be far better than the current fossil-fuel system, which wastes about two-thirds of the energy we use.  Back to that Lawrence Livermore energy flow chart.  With an all-electric energy system, we will no longer suffer from the gross amount of waste associated with heat loss from burning fossil fuels in our power plants, cars, and other machines.

To power the future electric energy system, including EVs, we will need about three times the electricity we produce today—somewhat less if we enhance energy efficiency.  Building more electrical capacity will take some time, but so will the production of millions of EVs.  One thing that will really help to expand our electricity capacity is the fact that solar and wind power can be deployed quite rapidly.

Building more electrical capacity will take some time, but so will the production of millions of EVs.  And once again, I come back to one of the themes I’ve emphasized when we talked about other issues like the charging infrastructure.  Capitalism.  With the right incentives and a growing business environment, I see no reason to believe we can’t rapidly produce lots of EVs, chargers, and electrical generating capacity.  And one thing that will really help to expand our electricity capacity is the fact that solar and wind power can be deployed quite rapidly.

Ice.  OK.  I think we’ve covered the waterfront on EVs and related topics.  Let’s wrap things up with one last question.  Let’s focus on the future.  In light of the current situation with electric vehicles—the advantages you have described and the “transition issues” you talked about—what’s your wish list for the future?  Both for yourself and for EVs overall?

Evie.  My wish list is basically to keep doing the things we’re doing now.  Continue the progress and the trends we’re already seeing.  So obviously, I’d like to see the continued deployment of charging stations.  That includes both the fast charging networks—improving their density with less distance between them and filling in the few gaps in remote places where they’re aren’t any fast chargers yet.

Given the paradigm I described for charging—that you charge where you’re parked to do something else, especially eating a meal—I’d really like to see the national fast-food restaurants make a commitment to deploy a few fast chargers at all of their locations.  Let’s just take McDonalds as an example.  I’d like to get to the point where when you pull off the highway to stop at a McDonalds for lunch, you know there will be a half dozen fast chargers in their parking lot.  And, ideally, those fast chargers would be powered by solar panels covering the parking lots.  And the same thing for Subway, Chipotle, Burger King, Wendys, and all the rest.

Given the paradigm for charging EVs—that you charge where you’re parked to do something else, especially eating a meal—I’d really like to see the national fast-food restaurants make a commitment to deploy a few fast chargers at all of their locations—ideally powered by solar panels covering their parking lots. 

And for fast chargers, it would also be helpful to continue the trend toward universal access for all EVs.  It would have been nice if the auto companies had gotten together years ago to agree on a standard fast charging plug.  But given that didn’t happen, the next-best solution would be universal adaptors to allow any EV to use any fast charger. 

In addition, as the networks get built out, I’d like to see the other charging companies improve their quality so that their systems are as easy to use and reliable as the Supercharging network.  There are too many reports of fast chargers that are broken or overly complicated to activate.

For fast chargers, it would also be helpful to continue the trend toward universal access for all EVs.  In addition, as the networks get built out, I’d like to see the other charging companies improve their quality so that their systems are as easy to use and reliable as the Supercharging network. 

For the fast charging stations deployed by Tesla and the other companies, I’d really like to see all those parking lots covered with solar canopies, so that at least some of the electricity comes directly from local solar power.  That would also help with the grid.  Tesla has done that with some of their Supercharging stations, and it’s a nice feature because it also provides shade and protection from the weather while you’re parked to charge

For the fast charging stations deployed by Tesla and the other companies, I’d really like to see all those parking lots covered with solar canopies, so that at least some of the electricity comes directly from local solar power. 

In addition to fast chargers, I’d also like to see the continued deployment of Level 2 chargers at hotels.  It would be good to know that any hotel where you plan to stay on a road trip will have chargers for overnight charging.  And given the possibility of crowding, it would also be really nice to be able to reserve a charger, just like you can reserve a room—even if there’s an extra charge for that convenience.  To help get to universal charging coverage at hotels, I’d like to see one or more of the national hotel chains make a commitment to deploy chargers at all their locations as a competitive advantage, which would spur others to do the same as more and more potential customers drive EVs.  I

n addition, it would be really helpful if the travel sites like Expedia had a filter for finding hotels with chargers.  You can find them now with the Tesla website or the PlugShare app, but it would be helpful to directly find hotels with chargers when you’re making a reservation through a travel site.

In addition to fast chargers, I’d also like to see the continued deployment of Level 2 chargers at hotels.  And given the possibility of crowding, it would also be really nice to be able to reserve a charger, just like you can reserve a room—even if there’s an extra charge for that convenience.  In addition, it would be really helpful if the travel sites like Expedia had a filter for finding hotels with chargers. 

Before I leave the issue of chargers, in light of our 2022 electric road trip to the National Parks, I’d also like to mention a particular subset of that topic—the need for a lot more chargers in the park system.  Right now, the record of the National Park Service on supporting chargers is pretty uneven.  We were able to go to all the National Parks in the Lower 48 states despite the lack of support from the park service.  Some of the lodges within the parks have a couple of Level 2 chargers for overnight charging, but many do not.  And a couple of chargers at each location is inadequate in light of the growing numbers of EVs.  Today, there should be at least a half dozen at every lodge.  And like hotels, these chargers should be reservable, even if that requires a fee.  Given the number of campsites and cabins within the National Parks, NPS should also provide 240-volt outlets at those parking areas—again, reservable for a fee. 

At National Parks, there should be at least a half dozen Level 2 chargers at every lodge.  And like hotels, these chargers should be reservable, even if that requires a fee.  There should also be fast chargers at all the Visitor Centers in the park system, and they should be powered by solar canopies covering the parking lots.  The National Parks are, after all, often in very remote locations, many of them with vast distances within the parks. 

In addition to Level 2 chargers at the lodges and campsites, there should also be fast chargers at all the Visitor Centers in the park system.  This is typically the first stop when you enter a National Park, and visitors usually spend some time there to watch an orientation film or talk to the Rangers.  That would be a perfect opportunity to charge if an EV is low as it reaches a park.  And like the other fast chargers, these should be powered by solar canopies covering the parking lots.

The National Parks are, after all, often in very remote locations, many of them with vast distances within the parks.  The park service recognizes the need to provide gas stations within the parks.  It is incomprehensible that, in 2022, there was not a single fast charger in a National Park, as far as we could see, and a grossly inadequate number of Level 2 chargers at the lodges.

Ice.  Anything else on your charging wish list?

Evie.  Well, it’s a relatively small point, but as I mentioned when I was describing the types of chargers, I would like to see the EV automakers standardize on the type of electrical outlets for their chargers—even if they don’t standardize on one type of charger.  It would be helpful if all Level 2 chargers plugged into a 240-volt 14-50 outlet, as well as standard 120-volt outlets.  That way, we could standardize on one type of 240-volt outlet in garages and other places where chargers are installed.  It would also be helpful if the building codes were updated for the electric transition so that all garages have a 240-volt 14-50 outlet for an EV charger.  That would save people a lot of money and time, as compared to having to get an electrician to come install a new circuit some time later.  The same is true of 240-volt outlets for other electric systems of the future, including heat pumps, electric water heaters, and electric induction ranges.

Ice.  So continued progress on several fronts to continue building the charging infrastructure is on your wish list.  What about autonomous driving?  You haven’t mentioned that at all.

Evie.  There are a couple of reasons why I haven’t mentioned autonomous driving.  For one thing, I regard that as a separate topic from electric vehicles.  Tesla has certainly closely associated autonomy with electric vehicles, but I think they are separate issues.  You could, in principle, have gas-powered cars with autonomous driving capability, and you can have EVs without autonomous driving.

I regard autonomous driving as a separate topic from electric vehicles.  I’m also a skeptic on autonomous driving. 

Second, I’m also a skeptic on autonomous driving.  I have too much experience with testing complex systems in complex environments to not be skeptical.  I can believe that autonomous vehicles will someday be able handle most driving situations—and probably even do it better than human drivers, many of whom are, after all, somewhat flawed as we can see in every day driving.  But there are just too many edge situations where autonomous cars won’t know what to do.  Situations where there is construction or an accident—not to mention situations where the car’s sensors aren’t working properly.  So I’m just skeptical about the ability of autonomous cars to handle all situations.  Even if they are better than humans in 90 percent of the situations—even 95 percent—I’m skeptical that we will unleash cars without human drivers and accept the problems that occur in the small number of edge situations.

The other thing is that I’m not sure most people really want an autonomous car.  Personally, I like to drive.  And I certainly don’t want to use a robo-car that I don’t own.  I want my car to be in my garage and available when I want it, and I want to leave my stuff in it.  I also think that the autonomous capability is grossly over-priced, at least in Tesla’s case.

I recognize that opinions may vary on all these points, but I go back to my first point—it’s a separate issue from the electric transition.

Ice.  OK, fair enough.  Other things on your wish list other than more chargers?

Evie.  Sure.  Again, in the category of continuing the current trends, I’d like to see more model diversity and a little more range. 

In the category of continuing the current trends, I’d like to see more EV model diversity and a little more range. 

The number of models increases every year, including now some options for pickup trucks.  So that is a big improvement.  But there are still some gaps.  For example, there still isn’t an all-electric minivan.  And the model I’d like to see from Tesla and the other automakers is an affordable SUV in the Ford Explorer size class with 350-mile range.

Ice.  What about range?

Evie.  As I’ve said earlier in our discussion, range around 300 miles is adequate to do road trips—particularly with a well-developed fast charging network like Tesla’s Superchargers.  After all, we were able to do a 27,000-mile electric road trip with a 300-mile EV using the Tesla Supercharger network.  But a little more range would be nice.  Specifically, the two things I’d like to see is highway range of about 350 miles and more reserve battery capacity built into EVs.  Range declines quickly at highway speeds of 70-80 miles per hour, and that’s really the range that matters—more than the city range to drive around locally where you have access to a home charger.  And a larger battery reserve would allow EVs to preserve their advertised range numbers even as batteries lose a few percent of the capacity over time.

EV range around 300 miles is adequate to do road trips—particularly with a well-developed fast charging network.  But a little more range would be nice.  Specifically, the two things I’d like to see is highway range of about 350 miles and more reserve battery capacity built into EVs. 

Ice.  Say more about that.  You haven’t talked about that much.

Evie.  We talked about battery longevity and the fact that EV batteries typically lose a few percent of their capacity in the first couple of years.  Not a drastic loss as people might expect from their cell phone batteries.  But a few percent.  Even though it’s not as bad as people might fear based on their cell phone experience, I think when people buy a 300-mile EV, they expect to have a 300-mlle car for the life of the vehicle.

A little more of reserve capacity would help offset the anticipated loss of battery capacity over the life of an EV.   

EV makers already provide some reserve battery capacity that the driver doesn’t access, which is why you can keep going for a few miles even when you’re on zero.  But a little more of that would help offset the anticipated loss of capacity.  So that’s on my personal wish list.

Ice.  So more chargers, powered by solar energy; more support for EVs at National Parks; more model diversity, and a little more range.  Anything else on your wish list?

Evie.  Yes, one more item.  Actually, I should have started with this one, because it’s the key to several improvements.  Better batteries.  Again, this is a continuation of current trends.  Better batteries would help with a lot of things, including range, but especially with lowering the upfront cost of EVs, which is probably the biggest obstacle to the electric transition right now. 

Better batteries are the key to several improvements in EVs, including range and upfront cost. 

Ice.  How much better?

Evie.  I’d say about twice as good in energy density, which translates to both range and cost.  Some years back, the general feeling was that we needed to get the cost of batteries down to $100 per kilowatt-hour of capacity.  The exact numbers are closely held by the EV makers, but I think we’re pretty close to that number now.  That’s still probably not good enough. 

We’ll need battery packs of about 100 to 120 kilowatt-hour capacity for the kind of range people want.  At $100, that translates to a “gas tank” costing $10,000 or more.  Battery costs of about $50 per kilowatt-hour would probably get EVs to parity on upfront pricing. 

My rough estimate is that we’ll need battery packs of about 100 to 120 kilowatt-hour capacity for the kind of range people want—for example, for the 350 miles of highway range I’d like to see.  At $100, that 100-kilowatt-hour battery pack translates to a “gas tank” costing $10,000 or more.  That, in turn, creates a major obstacle to getting EVs to parity on upfront pricing, even with the cost advantages associated with an electric drive train.  Battery costs of about $50 per kilowatt-hour would probably get us there.  And lower-cost batteries with better energy density would also allow increased battery capacity for longer range.

Ice.  We’ve covered a lot of ground in our discussion today.  Let me see if I can summarize your messages for the ADD audience members.  EVs are ready for prime time now.  They are better machines—better performance, more reliable, safer, and less expensive to operate.  Concerns about range and charging availability and time are over-blown—they’re good enough now and getting better all the time.

EVs are more expensive to buy right now, but that is also getting better, along with range, as battery technologies continue to improve.  Model availability is also getting better, with new classes of EVs like pickup trucks now coming into the market. 

Is that a good summary?

EVs are ready for prime time now.  They are better machines—better performance, more reliable, safer, and less expensive to operate.  Concerns about range and charging availability and time are over-blown—they’re good enough now and getting better all the time. EVs are more expensive to buy right now, but that is also getting better, along with range, as battery technologies continue to improve.  Model availability is also getting better, with new classes of EVs like pickup trucks now coming into the market. 

Evie.  That’s pretty good.  I would only add that you have to view EVs as part of a larger transition to a future electric economy and energy system powered by clean energy from the sun and other non-carbon sources.  That future energy system is the way to solve the climate crisis.  And it will be better in every meaningful way—cleaner air than we have had in centuries; more good jobs for Americans; greater energy independence and security; and a more efficient, abundant, and affordable energy system to not only sustain our way of life, but enhance it while preserving a healthy planet that is essential for everything else.

You have to view EVs as part of a larger transition to a future electric economy and energy system powered by clean energy from the sun and other non-carbon sources.  That future energy system is the way to solve the climate crisis.  And it will be better in every meaningful way—cleaner air than we have had in centuries; more good jobs for Americans; greater energy independence and security; and a more efficient, abundant, and affordable energy system to not only sustain our way of life, but enhance it while preserving a healthy planet that is essential for everything else.

Ice.  OK, that’s a good note to end this discussion.  Thank you and good night.

END

With some trepidation, RunningOnSouler wades into the treacherous waters known as The Great Gas Stove Controversy of 2023.  This is an opportunity to examine our collective love affair with one of the last survivors of the fossil fuel era—ranges that use natural gas to fuel the burners on the stovetop. 

It is also a chance to evaluate the new electric alternative that advanced technology has given us: induction stoves.

Are gas stoves really still the best for cooking?  Is there a better electric alternative—one that doesn’t emit nasty fumes inside and outside the house?

Here’s the short answer.  Electric induction stoves have all the advantages of gas for cooking.  They bring water to a boil even faster than gas, and they adjust cooking temperatures, up and down, just as quickly.  As a bonus, they are much easier to clean. 

Electric induction stoves have all the advantages of gas for cooking.  They bring water to a boil even faster than gas, and they adjust cooking temperatures, up and down, just as quickly.  As a bonus, they are much easier to clean. 

Induction ranges cost a little more, but they are more energy efficient and do not emit hazardous pollutants into the home or the atmosphere.  In a house that has converted to electric heat pumps for efficient space and water heating, an induction stove can be the last step in decarbonizing a home through electrification—cutting the gas line, and eliminating one of the last vestiges of the fossil fuel era.

——————————————————————————————–

For anyone who has stopped reading the daily newspaper—something one could certainly be forgiven for doing—the gas stove controversy started in early 2023 when Richard Trumka, Jr, one of the commissioners of the Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC), suggested in an interview that gas stoves are a “hidden hazard” and that banning them might be an option. 

The gas stove controversy started when one of the commissioners of the Consumer Products Safety Commission suggested in an interview that gas stoves are a “hidden hazard” and that banning them might be an option. 

Controversy immediately erupted.  Even Stephen Colbert weighed in during his monologue with an expletive and a vow that anyone trying to take his gas stove “can have my gas range when you pry it from my hot, sizzling hams!”

To be fair to Commissioner Trumka, he only said that a ban on gas stoves was one option for dealing with their harmful effects on both human health and the environment.  Stricter standards on emissions from new stoves were another possibility he mentioned.  And he later clarified that he was talking only about new stoves made in the future—no one was coming to take away Stephen Colbert’s existing gas stove, or anyone else’s.

Nevertheless, the first shot in The Great Gas Stove War of 2023 had been fired.  Many return volleys ensued.

To quell the controversy, the CPSC Chair later issued a statement saying that the commission was “not looking to ban gas stoves and the CPSC has no proceeding to do so.”

Leaving aside the issue of a future ban on new gas stoves, Commissioner Trumka had a point about their hazards to human health.  In fact, earlier studies had highlighted the potential hazards to respiratory health, especially asthmas in children.  Hazardous byproducts from burning natural gas indoors include nitrogen dioxide and carbon monoxide, as well as benzene, a known carcinogen. 

Earlier studies had highlighted the potential hazards to respiratory health created by gas stoves.

In fact, I had heard about the risks highlighted in these studies a few years earlier.  I realized that we should have been running the range hood exhaust vent above our gas stove every time we turned it on—a practice we subsequently adopted and have continued ever since then.

The controversy that erupted over the health hazards of gas stoves, together with talk of a possible ban, also highlighted the reasons people love their gas stoves so much.

The controversy that erupted over the health hazards of gas stoves, together with talk of a possible ban, also highlighted the reasons people love their gas stoves so much.

Gas stoves come to full power quickly, and they bring water to a boil rapidly.  They also adjust cooking temperatures up and down quickly and responsively, giving cooks precise control, as well as visual cues of the cooking level.

Gas stoves come to full power quickly, and they bring water to a boil rapidly.  They also adjust cooking temperatures up and down quickly and responsively, giving cooks precise control.

In contrast, traditional electric stoves use heating elements—coils that heat up when an electric current is sent to them.  They work, and they are actually the most common type of range in America.  But electric stovetops are slow to come to full power, and they do not adjust temperatures quickly—either up or down.  And there’s a safety issue because the heating elements do not cool quickly and can burn a hand even after they have been turned off.

Traditonal electric stovetops are slow to come to full power, and they do not adjust temperatures quickly—either up or down. 

Even ranges with gas cooktops typically have electric ovens, and they work well.  The issue is the stovetop.

What’s the problem with gas stoves, and is there a good alternative?

There is a new alternative to gas stoves—electric induction stoves.  Rather than use electricity to warm a heating coil that in turn warms the cookware placed on it, induction stoves use electricity to create a magnetic field that directly heats the cookware and the food in it.

There is a new alternative to gas stoves—electric induction stoves that use electricity to create a magnetic field that directly heats the cookware and the food in it.

A new range with an induction stove is pretty expensive, though they have been coming down in price in recent years.  For example, the GE Café 30-inch range with a double oven and convection capability—comparable to our current gas range—costs about $4,600, or about $4,000 on sale.  A new gas version is a few hundred dollars less.  But we installed our current range in 2015, so replacing it is a few years in the future.

A new range with an induction stove is pretty expensive, though they have been coming down in price in recent years. 

But to test induction stoves, I bought a portable, single-cooktop unit from Amazon.  There are a variety of highly rated models available.  I choose the Duxtop 1800W, which cost only $60.  The portable unit can be placed on the countertop and can be plugged into a standard 120-volt outlet.

To test induction stoves, I bought a portable, single-cooktop unit.  The portable unit can be placed on the countertop and can be plugged into a standard 120-volt outlet.

So how did the test go?

My experience with the portable unit showed that an induction stove definitely lives up to the advertised benefits, and it does indeed have the features that people value in their gas stoves.  In fact, the unit I tested is as good or better than our gas stove.

My experience with the portable unit showed that an induction stove definitely lives up to the advertised benefits, and it does indeed have the features that people value in their gas stoves. 

The induction cooktop immediately comes to full power and heats pots quickly.  In fact, it is even faster than a gas stove—almost twice as fast in my tests of boiling water, which is my primary cooking skill.

The induction cooktop heats up and comes to full power immediately, even faster than a gas stove—almost twice as fast in my tests.

For my test, I cooked a one-cup serving of Ben’s rice.  I used both the induction stove and our existing gas stove to bring to a boil a pot with two cups of cold water from the refrigerator’s water filter.  The gas stove on high brought the water to a boil in about four and a half minutes.  The induction unit had the water boiling in about two and a half minutes.  The faster speed of the induction unit is consistent with reviews of induction stoves I have read.

The induction cooktop also responds immediately to changes in the power setting, quickly turning the heat up or down—again, just like a gas stove. 

The induction cooktop also responds immediately to changes in the power setting, quickly turning the heat up or down—just like a gas stove. 

The induction unit also avoids the problem associated with traditional electric heating coils.  Its surface is not hot enough to burn a hand, even immediately after bringing a pot to boil.

The induction unit also avoids the problem associated with traditional electric heating coils.  Its surface is not hot enough to burn a hand, even immediately after bringing a pot to boil.

The induction stovetop with its smooth, level surface is also much easier to clean than a gas cooktop, without its hard-to-reach recessed areas around the burners.

The induction stovetop with its smooth, level surface is also much easier to clean than a gas cooktop.

The one downside of the induction cooktop I tested is noise.  I have also seen this mentioned in the reviews, though the fan in our portable unit may be worse than a built-in range.

One downside of the induction cooktop I tested is noise.

Induction cooktops also require cookware made of stainless steel or iron.  Aluminum cookware will not respond to the magnetic field.  There’s a simple way to test cookware for compatibility with an induction stove: see if a magnet is attracted to it.  This proved to be mostly a non-issue for us.  Our All-Clad pots and iron skillets all work fine, though a couple of older Revere Ware copper-bottom pots do not.

Induction cooktops also require cookware made of stainless steel or iron.  Aluminum cookware will not respond to the magnetic field. 

My favorable impressions from trying a portable induction stovetop track closely with reviews in Consumer Reports.  Their January 2023 article on induction cooktops noted that induction ranges generally outperform every other kind of range in Consumer Reports tests.  They noted that every induction range tested in their lab delivered fast cooktop heat and superb simmering. 

My favorable impressions from trying a portable induction stovetop track closely with reviews in Consumer Reports. 

The Consumer Reports article listed several pros of induction cooktops, including better indoor air quality and energy efficiency—about three times more than gas stoves.  They also commented on the safety features of induction ranges, which won’t get hot if it is turned on when there is no pot on the cooktop.  Like my tests, they noted the faster cooking—including boiling water in about half the time.  And they praised the precise and even cooking and ease of cleaning.

The article also noted some potential cons, including higher purchase price and the potential for additional expense if a kitchen is not wired for sufficient electric power, though that may not be an issue in a kitchen that already has an electric oven.  They mentioned the cookware issue—aluminum pans won’t work on induction.  And they observed the noise issue—a buzz or hum at higher settings and the sound of the cooling fan, as I noted on my portal unit.

For more information, see Pros and Cons of Induction Cooktops and Ranges, January 12, 2023.

Of course, an induction stovetop is also all-electric.  So there are no fuels being burned and no emissions coming into the house or being vented outside the house into the atmosphere.  The potential health hazards from our existing gas stove are probably minimized by a consistent use of the exhaust vent in the hood above the range.  But it would be even better to avoid the risk altogether by going electric and not burning fossil fuels inside our home.

Are gas stoves a big issue for climate change? 

Cooking accounts less than 5 percent of residential energy use, and more than 60 percent of that is already electric.  So eliminating gas stoves would have a relatively small impact on CO2 emissions.  But we need to get to zero carbon emissions to head off the worst impacts of climate change.  Even a reduction of 95 percent isn’t sufficient.  So every step we take to eliminate emissions helps.

Cooking accounts less than 5 percent of residential energy use, and more than 60 percent of that is already electric.  So eliminating gas stoves would have a relatively small impact on CO2 emissions.  But we need to get to zero carbon emissions to head off the worst impacts of climate change.  So every step we take to eliminate emissions helps.

There’s another reason to change the way we cook during the electrification transition.  The big reductions from residential sources of emissions will come from converting furnaces and water heaters that use natural gas and other fossil fuels to electric heat pumps.  Once we do that, stoves will be the only thing left that uses gas—they’ll be the last fossil fuel holdout.  At that point, it wouldn’t make sense to keep gas service just for a small amount used for cooking. 

The big reductions from residential sources of emissions will come from converting furnaces and water heaters that use natural gas to electric heat pumps.  Once we do that, stoves will be the only thing left that uses gas—they’ll be the last fossil fuel holdout.  At that point, it wouldn’t make sense to keep gas service just for a small amount used for cooking. 

And it certainly won’t make sense to run gas lines into new homes just for a stove.  Better to go all-electric at that point—and to get the natural gas totally out of the house—especially given the superior capabilities of induction cooktops.

Based on my research, and tests with a portable induction cooktop, I’m convinced that our next stove, when it comes time to replace our existing gas stove, should be an electric-powered induction range. 

Based on my research, and tests with a portable induction cooktop, I’m convinced that our next stove, when it comes time to replace our existing gas stove, should be an electric-powered induction range. 

The future is electric, and it will be better.

Ground-source heat pumps are one of the most energy efficient systems for heating and cooling a home.  We don’t have one in our home, but our friend Martin installed one in his new home in suburban Maryland.  So we made a trip to visit Martin’s home and interview him on his experience with the system.

Ground-source heat pumps are one of the most energy efficient systems for heating and cooling a home. 

Heat pumps are a modern miracle—the most energy-efficient way to heat and cool your home.  And they run on electricity, so they eliminate the need to burn natural gas or heating oil to generate heat from a furnace.  Instead of burning a fossil fuel—generating harmful emissions in the process—heat pumps operating on only electricity transfer heat pulled from outside to warm the interior of a building.  In warm weather, the process is reversed to air-condition a building by transferring heat to the outside.

Heat pumps are a modern miracle.  Running on only electricity, they transfer heat pulled from outside to warm the interior of a building, achieving 300-400 percent energy efficiency.

The “magic”—achieved through the use of refrigerants and compressors—is that heat pumps provide more heat than the energy they use.  That’s because they are not generating heat through combustion—they are transferring it between the outside and the inside of a building.  When you burn natural gas in a furnace, the maximum level of efficiency is one unit of heat for each unit of energy used—and in practice, less than that.  Heat pumps, on the other hand, can deliver three or four kilowatts of heat for each kilowatt of electricity they use to run the compressor and fans.  That translates to 300 to 400 percent energy efficiency.

And energy efficiency means dollar savings on utility bills.

Energy efficiency means dollar savings on utility bills.

Replacing a furnace that burns natural gas or heating oil with a heat pump is also one of the most impactful ways to reduce carbon emissions, while also eliminating other harmful air pollutants that have the potential to enter your home.  (That’s why you should have a carbon-monoxide detector if you have a furnace or water heater that burns fossil fuels.) 

Replacing a furnace that burns natural gas or heating oil with a heat pump is one of the most impactful ways to reduce carbon emissions.  Residential energy use is about one-fifth of total US consumption, and more than 40 percent of that is for heating.

Eliminating a furnace burning fossil fuels is one of the top two ways to de-carbonize your life—along with switching to an electric vehicle.  Residential energy use is about one-fifth of total US consumption, and more than 40 percent of that is for heating.  Much of residential heating is currently done with natural gas, with a smaller amount using heating oil, especially in the Northeast.

The solution to the climate crisis is to electrify our machines and make them more energy efficient, while powering the electricity from clean renewable energy from the sun and other non-carbon sources.  Heat pumps—by electrifying space heating and maximizing energy efficiency—are one of the key elements of that electrified energy system of the future. 

And while helping to solve the climate crisis, the efficiency of heat pumps can also save money on utility bills.

The solution to the climate crisis is to electrify our machines and make them more energy efficient, while powering the electricity from clean renewable energy from the sun and other non-carbon sources.  Heat pumps are one of the key elements of that electrified energy system of the future. 

Most heat pumps transfer heat between the air in a building and the air outside.  They work well in most temperatures, but they start to lose efficiency in very cold or hot temperatures.  My first home had a heat pump, installed in the early 1980s.  I still remember watching a Superbowl game back then when the outside temperature was near zero and the heat pump became almost useless, even with its back-up electric heating element.  I needed a portable electric heater and a blanket to stay warm.

Modern heat pumps with variable speed compressors and advanced refrigerants are much better than earlier generations, enabling them to operate at temperatures well below zero.  There was a news article recently about people in Maine who have switched from furnaces burning expensive heating oil to heat pumps.  In addition to saving money and reducing emissions, they have been pleased with the performance of their heat pumps in Maine’s cold northern climate.

Modern heat pumps with variable speed compressors and advanced refrigerants are much better than earlier generations, enabling them to operate at temperatures well below zero. 

Nevertheless, air-source heat pumps do lose efficiency as they have to work harder in frigid temperatures, and they start to lose effectiveness in temperatures below minus-10 degrees.

Enter ground-source heat pumps.

Ground-source heat pumps are sometimes called geothermal heat pumps, though that term can be confused with geothermal power plants that generate utility-scale electricity by drilling wells deep into the Earth to capture steam to drive a turbine.

As the name implies, ground-source heat pumps transfer heat to and from the ground, rather than the outside air.  The ground deep below the surface stays a relatively constant temperature of about 50 degrees.  The benefit of this approach is that ground-source heat pumps have to do less work in cold temperatures to draw heat from the ground, rather than the air.  That makes them more efficient and able to operate effectively in very cold—or hot—temperatures.

Ground-source heat pumps transfer heat to and from the ground, rather than the outside air.  The ground deep below the surface stays a relatively constant temperature of about 50 degrees.  The benefit of this approach is that ground-source heat pumps have to do less work in cold temperatures to draw heat from the ground, rather than the air. 

—————————————————————————————–

To learn more about ground-source heat pumps, RunningOnSouler interviewed our friend Martin at his new home in Maryland.

RunningOnSouler.  Martin, thanks for taking the time to show us your ground-source heat pump system.

Martin.  Happy to do it!  I’m always happy to show off the system, which we love.  And I’m also a big fan of RunningOnSouler.  I follow all your posts on Instagram, and I read all the articles on the website.

RunningOnSouler.  Good to hear!  So let’s get started.  How long have you had the system?

Martin.  We had it installed when we built the house in June 2021.  There were a few advantages of installing it during the construction of the house.  There’s obviously some excavation to install the system—wells drilled 350-400 feet into the ground, and a trench from the wells into the basement.  It’s best to do that during new construction or during a major addition.  We also had all the necessary electrical circuits installed as part of the original plan for the house.

On the financial side, we got a credit from the builder for the regular HVAC system they otherwise would have installed, and we were able to roll the cost into our mortgage.

There were advantages of installing a ground-source heat pump during construction of a new house—including drilling the deep wells needed for the system. 

RunningOnSouler.  Other than the wells in the ground, there are no other parts of the system outside the house, right?

Martin.  That’s right.  It’s all under ground.  So there’s no equipment outside the house as you see with a traditional air conditioner or air-source heat pump.  That’s one of the things I really like about the system.  There’s no noise from an outside unit.  And with the rest of the system inside the house, there are no parts exposed to the weather, which, over time, should avoid problems caused by damaging cold, heat, moisture, and sun.  So I expect the system to have a longer service life than an air-source heat pump.

There’s no equipment outside the house as you see with a traditional air conditioner or air-source heat pump, so there’s no noise and no exposure of external equipment to adverse weather. 

RunningOnSouler.  I imagine your neighbors really appreciate the absence of noise.  Some of the air conditioners in our neighborhood make a real racket.

Martin.  Well, in our case, I’m less concerned about the neighbors because the houses are pretty far apart.  But I appreciate the lack of noise when we’re out on our deck.

RunningOnSouler.  You mentioned some financial advantages from installing the system as part of the construction of the house.  I’ve heard these ground-source heat pumps are pretty expensive.

Martin.  Yes, you definitely pay more upfront.  But as I said, we rolled the cost into the mortgage, which helps.  And I expect the system will pay for itself over time with energy savings from its efficiency.

Ground-source heat pumps cost more upfront, but should pay for itself over time with energy savings from its efficiency.

RunningOnSouler.  How much did your system cost?

Martin.  We have a pretty big house, so we have a two-level system—one for the basement and first floor, and one for the second and third floors.  That meant our system has three wells, rather than the usual two, as well as two units inside.  The cost was about $45,000.  But we got 26 percent of that back from the Federal tax credit, making a net cost of a little more than $30,000.  I’m guessing a smaller system might cost several thousand dollars less than ours.

RunningOnSouler.  Yes, I got a bid on the ground-source heat pump for our house a few years ago, and that was about $30,000, before the tax credit.  I didn’t do it at the time because they would have had to dig up part of the driveway to drill the wells.  Of course, we ended up having to replace the driveway a few years later anyway.  So I’ve always regretted not installing one then—especially now that I’m hearing some pretty high numbers for regular heat pumps these days.

Martin.  We certainly have no regrets.  We’re very happy with the performance of the system.  It keeps the house nice and warm in the winter and cool in the summer.  One other comfort advantage is there is no need for a humidifier.  Rather than the occasional blasts of hot air that you get with a furnace that burns fossil fuels, a heat pump system puts out a relatively steady stream of warm air.  That results in a comfortable level of humidity with no need for a humidifier.

We’re very happy with the performance of the system.  It keeps the house nice and warm in the winter and cool in the summer, and there is no need for a humidifier. 

RunningOnSouler.  How about the cleanliness of the air?

Martin.  Yes, it’s hard to quantify, but my impression is that we have less soot coming out of the air ducts—simply because there’s no combustion in a furnace.

RunningOnSouler.  The big selling point of these systems—the key to paying for the higher upfront cost—is energy efficiency and lower utility bills.  What’s your experience with that so far?

Martin.  Unfortunately, our system doesn’t have an app to directly monitor electricity use.  So the best indication I have of its energy efficiency is the overall electricity use for the home.  During almost two years of operation, we’ve averaged about 1600 kilowatt-hours of electricity use per month.  Based on average residential electricity consumption numbers I’ve seen, that’s pretty good for an all-electric house of 3,900 square feet. 

Over almost two years of operation, we’ve averaged about 1600 kilowatt-hours of electricity use per month, which is quite good for an all-electric house of 3,900 square feet. 

RunningOnSouler.  I’d say that’s really good.  By comparison, our house is about 3,000 square feet.  It’s well insulated and energy efficient.  We use about 1,800 kilowatts of electricity per month, and we still use gas for heating and cooking.  Of course, that number includes charging an electric car, which you don’t have yet, and that accounts for about 300 kilowatt-hours per month.  So adjusting for EV charging, we use about the same amount of electricity, but you’re all electric and have a slightly larger house.

Martin.  Right.  So bottom line, we use an equivalent amount of electricity, but our house is bigger and all-electric, and you’re still using gas for heating, which is the biggest single source of energy use.

RunningOnSouler.  So it sounds like the system is living up to expectations on energy efficiency.  Any issues or problems with the system?

Martin.  No maintenance or repairs needed so far in the first two years of operation.  We have a Climate Master system installed by Metcalf & Sons.  Climate Master is one of the leading makers of ground-source heat pumps.  There are other good manufacturers with EnergyStar certification like WaterFurnace, GeoStar, and York.  But the best advice we got was to go with a good local installer and the system they are familiar with.

Our Climate Master system installed by Metcalf & Sons has had no maintenance or repairs needed in the first two years of operation. 

RunningOnSouler.  I’ve also read about a new company called Dandelion Energy.  They’re working to lower the upfront cost of geothermal heat pump systems, primarily by developing a less costly and invasive way of drilling the wells.  They also deal with the upfront cost problem by offering loans that are paid with the customer’s energy savings over time.  Supposedly, their systems can pay for themselves in seven years.  The company was originally started as part of Google X but became an independent company a few years ago.  Unfortunately, they’re only operating in the Northeast so far.

Martin.  Well, that wasn’t an option for us.

RunningOnSouler.  Nor for us, at least right now.  So, Martin, with an all-electric house, the obvious question everyone wants to ask is, what happens if the power goes out?

Martin.  That has actually happened to us out here a couple of times.  We have a high-efficiency wood-burning stove as a supplement, which keeps the family room nice and toasty, even with the thermostat for the heat pump set at 68 degrees.  It also serves as a backup source of heat if there is a loss of electricity.  And there’s plenty of wood out here to keep us going indefinitely.

RunningOnSouler.  What about the argument I hear all the time that your system isn’t really cutting emissions—it’s just transferring them to the electric utility.

Martin.  When we built the house, we also installed a large solar system, with 48 panels providing a 19-kilowatt array.  The panels face east and west on the garage roof—not ideal for solar production—but they should generate an average of about 2,000 kilowatt-hours per month, more than enough to power the house, and maybe even an electric vehicle some day.

RunningOnSouler.  So won’t your solar system keep the electricity going to power the heat pump and your other power needs?  You did include a battery backup, right?

Martin.  Well, as I’m sure you know, the solar array goes down if the power goes out, because the inverter needs electricity to convert the DC power generated by the solar panels into AC power used in the house.  At the time we built the house, the battery backups were pretty expensive.  So right now, we have a generator for backup power.

RunningOnSouler.  Well, you’ve certainly done a lot to reduce your carbon footprint.  Thanks very much for your time today.  It sounds like your ground-source heat pump was a great investment.  And I definitely have solar panel envy now.  Any last parting thoughts?

Martin.  Well, I should have said earlier that I really am quite concerned about the climate problem.  That’s one of the reasons we went all-electric with our new house, including the large solar system.  And I like the idea of being energy independent—not to mention having essentially no utility bills. 

I’ve read enough of the other articles on your website to know that the answer to the climate problem is to electrify all our machines, make them as energy efficient as possible, and power them with electricity from the sun and other non-carbon sources.  With our ground-source heat pump, a heat-pump water heater, and a solar array, our home is pretty far along on the road to electrification, energy efficiency, and zero emissions.

RunningOnSouler.  Yes, indeed—that’s music to my ears!  But what about that gas-hog pick-up truck you drive to work?  Have you reserved your electric F-150 Lightning yet?

Martin.  I’m still waiting for a 1-ton version of an electric pickup truck, which I need to haul some heavy loads.  But the garage is wired for a 240-volt charger when the time comes.

RunningOnSouler.  OK, one step at a time.  Take the wins where you can.  Thanks again!

Two of our favorite things are long hot showers and high-tech gadgets.  What do those two things have in common?  You can get them both with an electric hybrid heat-pump water heater.

Our new Rheem Performance Platinum hybrid unit from Home Depot uses heat pump technology to significantly cut energy costs—about half that of a gas-fueled unit and less than a third of a traditional electric water heater.  And it’s all-electric, so it eliminates the burning of natural gas in the house and venting of exhaust emissions into the atmosphere.

We’ve had the unit for about three weeks, and its performance has been excellent, providing plenty of hot water for showers, washing clothes, and running the dishwasher.  If we were to ever experience unusually high demand—for example, several guests visiting—it can be switched to high-demand mode to run like a traditional electric unit using a heating element to warm the water more quickly.

And the Rheem Performance Platinum unit is also WIFI enabled so that you can remotely monitor hot water status and energy use—with options to change from heat pump to high demand mode if necessary, or even to schedule those changes in advance by time of day or day of the week for predictable demands.

We couldn’t be more pleased with the switch from gas to electric for our water heating.  As part of our electrification transition, we’ve eliminated the second biggest source of emissions from our home, while reducing our operating costs.  The Rheem electric hybrid heat-pump water heater provides plentiful hot water, with lots of assurance that running out should never be a concern.  The hybrid is the best of both worlds—an energy-efficient unit in normal operation, with an option to switch to a traditional electric heating element if needed.  The higher upfront cost will be quickly recouped with a combination of lower annual operating costs and Federal tax incentives designed to promote energy efficiency and electrification.

———————————————

Hot water heaters—with apologies for the redundant terminology—are one of the great inventions of modern life.  Nothing beats a nice, long hot shower or bath.  And hot water is an essential ingredient for kitchen cooking and cleaning, as well as laundry.

Hot Water Heaters Fueled by Natural Gas: A Great 20^th Century Machine

Hot water heaters fueled by natural gas were awesome machines in the 20^th century, reliably producing hot water with fast recovery. 

Hot water heaters fueled by natural gas were awesome machines in the 20^th century.  They reliably produce hot water year after year, and the fast recovery enabled by the heat they can blast ensures that you are unlikely to ever run out of hot water.  We’ve had one in our home for almost 19 years, and we have never run out of hot water, even with five people living in the house.  It has been totally reliable, except for a couple of times when temporary natural gas shortages in the area caused it to shut down.  Our unit is relatively efficient in its use of fuel, converting a large fraction of the natural gas energy supplied to it into hot water, with a power vent into a small PVC exhaust pipe to the roof of the house.

But gas-fueled water heaters run on a fossil fuel, and their exhaust fumes add directly to the already-too-high levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.  To solve the climate crisis created by burning fossil fuels, we need to convert all our machines to electricity, making the transition every time one needs replacement.

The Need to Electrify Our Machines for the 21^st Century

But gas-fueled water heaters run on a fossil fuel, and its exhaust fumes add directly to the already-too-high levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.  To solve the climate crisis created by burning fossil fuels, we need to convert all our machines to electricity, making the transition every time one needs replacement.  And we need to power those new electric machines with electricity from non-carbon sources.

Water heating is the second largest use of energy in American homes—at almost 20 percent of residential energy consumption—and gas water heaters currently comprise slightly more than half the water heaters.

Today, water heating is the second largest use of energy in American homes—at almost 20 percent of residential energy consumption—exceeded only by space heating at 43 percent.  Gas water heaters currently comprise slightly more than half the water heaters in the US, so in those cases, the energy they use translates directly into emissions and higher levels of atmospheric CO2.

Electric hot water heaters have been available for many years, but their heating elements use a lot of electricity, leading to high operating costs.

Electric hot water heaters have been available for many years—about 40 percent of current units in the US are powered by electricity.  But those units, which directly warm the water with a heating element, use a lot of electricity, leading to high operating costs.

Electric Hybrid Water Heaters

Electric hybrid water heaters, which use modern heat-pump technology to transfer heat from the air to warm the water, are much more energy efficient, and therefore less expensive to operate.  They’re called “hybrid” units because, in addition to the heat-pump mode, they can also use a traditional heating element to rapidly warm water in high-demand situations—providing the best of both electric worlds.

Energy-efficient hybrid water heaters use heat pump technology with a Uniform Energy Factor (UEF) rating of 4.0 and an estimated annual energy cost of only $150—compared to about $500 for a traditional electric water heater or $300 for a gas-fueled unit.

To put some numbers on the energy-efficiency point, hybrid water heaters using heat pump technology are Energy Star rated, and our new Rheem unit has a Uniform Energy Factor (UEF) rating of 4.0.  That translates to an estimated annual energy cost of $149.

In comparison, Rheem’s new traditional electric water heater relying on only a heating element has a UEF of .93, with annual operating cost of $489—more than three times higher than a heat-pump unit.

Depending on the model, hot water heaters fueled by natural gas have Uniform Energy Factors ranging from .64 to .70, with estimated annual operating costs of about $300 ($271 on the low end to $320 on the high end)—roughly twice the cost of an electric hybrid heat-pump unit.  And all the energy use of a gas-fueled water heater translates directly into emissions.

Upfront Costs

The upfront purchase cost of hybrid hot water heaters is higher than either a gas unit or a traditional electric water heat.

After some product research, we settled on a Rheem water heater from Home Depot, installed by a local contractor they provided. 

After some product research, we settled on a Rheem Performance Platinum electric heat-pump water heater from Home Depot.  Rheem is a well-established, American-based company, and its heat-pump water heaters are well regarded, appearing at the top, or near the top, of most reviews.  They are consistently well rated on performance, efficiency, noise level, and engineering quality.  And their association with Home Depot makes for a convenient shopping experience with a well-known business.

The upfront cost of heat-pump hot water heaters is higher—about $1,000 more than a gas unit and $1,000-2,000 higher than a traditional electric unit.  But the higher upfront cost will be quickly offset by lower operating costs and Federal tax savings intended to promote the adoption of energy-efficient units.

Equipment costs for the Rheem electric hybrid heat-pump water heaters range from $1,700 for a 50-gallon unit to $2,700 for an 80-gallon unit (with a 65-gallon option at $2,200).  We opted to pay the higher $2,700 cost for the 80-gallon unit because we were replacing a 75-gallon unit and wanted to ensure that we never run out of hot water. 

For comparison, equipment cost for a Rheem 75-gallon replacement gas unit would have been about $1,000 less than the heat-pump unit—a difference largely offset by the 30-percent Federal tax credit for the electric hybrid unit—an incentive intended to promote the purchase of high-efficiency electric units. 

Traditional electric units with heating elements are much cheaper—about $2,000 less than the 80-gallon hybrid, and $1000 less than a 50-gallon hybrid unit.  But the upfront difference would be quickly offset in operation by much higher energy costs—about three times higher, an additional cost of more than $300 per year.

Home Depot’s local installer provided high-quality service.

Home Depot provides a recommended set of local installers, and they put us in touch with a local plumbing company called Fairfax Electric, Plumbing and Gas in Fredericksburg, Virginia.  The company is rated highly in Washington Consumer Checkbook and other rating sites, and their performance for our installation lived up to those high expectations.  Their communications throughout the process were professional and responsive—including a follow-up call the evening after the installation to make sure the unit was working properly.  The scheduling was fast—delayed only by a few days while they waited for more Rheem units to be delivered to them.  And the installation itself was on time, quick (less than two hours), and done properly.

Total cost for equipment and installation was about $4,000, including a drip pan, an expansion tank required by the County, and the capping off of the old gas line and exhaust pipe.  The total cost of a comparable gas unit would have been about $3,200—about the amount of the Federal tax credit.

Getting “Electric Ready”

Depending on your home set-up, replacing a gas hot water heater with an electric unit—either hybrid or traditional—may also require some electrical work. 

Depending on your home set-up, replacing a gas hot water heater with an electric unit—either hybrid or traditional—may also require some electrical work.  The Rheem hybrid unit requires a dedicated 240-volt, 30-amp circuit, whereas our previous gas unit needed only a 120-volt outlet for the power vent.  So to prepare for the installation of the Rheem hybrid unit, we had to have an electrician install a new 240-volt circuit in the basement, at an additional cost of $600.

It’s wise to plan ahead by getting “electric ready” for the all-electric future.  The “big three” in home electrification—charging electric vehicles and powering HVAC heat pumps and hybrid water heaters—all require dedicated 240-volt circuits.  So if you’re having electrical work done—especially if you’re building a new home or launching a major renovation—you should have the required electrical circuits installed all at once and in advance.

Our experience with the electric water heater illustrates a more general point about preparing for the all-electric future.  The “big three” in home electrification—charging electric vehicles and powering HVAC heat pumps and hybrid water heaters—all require dedicated 240-volt circuits, as well as a 200-amp electric service panel.  So as you prepare for the transition to all electric machines in your home, it is wise to plan ahead by getting “electric ready.”  If you’re having electrical work done—especially if you’re building a new home or launching a major addition or renovation—you should have the required electrical circuits run all at once and in advance—including a 200-amp electrical service panel, if you don’t already have one.  That way, you should be able to minimize costs and not be stuck waiting for an electrician when you suddenly need to replace an old furnace or water heater that dies.

Performance So Far

So how does the Rheem hybrid water heater perform?

In three weeks of operation, we’ve had plenty of hot water for those long showers, as well as for washing clothes and dishes.

The most important thing, of course, is not running out of hot water.  In three weeks of operation, we’ve had plenty of hot water for those long showers, as well as for washing clothes and dishes.  The unit is equipped with WIFI, and a phone app allows us to monitor the hot water levels.  So far, we have never been below one-third, and usually at two-thirds.

The heat-pump mode, though extremely energy efficient, replenishes hot water at only about 20 gallons per hour—half the rate of a gas-fueled unit.  But that turns out to be a non-issue for three reasons: it’s fast enough, we have a large 80-gallon tank, and the high demand mode is available through a remote app setting if needed.

The heat-pump mode, though extremely energy efficient, replenishes hot water at only about 20 gallons per hour—half the rate of a gas-fueled unit.  But that turns out to be a non-issue for three reasons.  First, as we have monitored the hot water levels after our morning showers, the unit has been replenishing the hot water in an hour or two, even in heat-pump mode.  Second, the 80-gallon capacity provides additional assurance of plentiful supply.  And as a third level of assurance, we have the option to temporarily turn on the (less energy-efficient) high demand mode if we ever run low.  The app even allows us to create a schedule for high demand mode by time of day and day of the week.  So, for example, if we had a number of house guests, all taking showers in the morning, we could set the unit to operate in high demand mode from 8:00 to 10:00 in the morning to quickly replenish the hot water supply.

The only time the low heating rate of the heat-pump mode was an issue was during initial operation, when the unit had to heat 80 gallons of cold water.  I watched the hot water level for a few hours after the morning of installation and grew concerned as the phone app continued to show “empty” on the hot water level.  In the late afternoon, I called the plumbing installation company, Fairfax Electric, Plumbing and Gas, and got a quick confirmation of my guess: I should switch to high demand mode until the unit was fully heated.  And, sure enough, the unit registered a full tank of hot water an hour or two later, at which time I switched back to heat-pump mode.  (Fairfax lived up to their high-quality rating by calling back that evening to make sure everything was working properly.)

We have not had to consider switching to high demand mode since then.

In addition to strong water-heating performance, noise has also been of no concern.  In fact, it is actually quieter than our old gas unit when its power vent fan was running.

A hybrid unit does need to be located in an area where it can draw in plenty of surrounding air to feed its heat pump.  That is not an issue in our unit’s basement location, but could be an issue for water heaters located in closets or other confined spaces.

Energy Efficiency

So does the hybrid’s energy efficiency live up to the claims?

Energy efficiency has also lived up to expectations, using a little more than 3 kilowatt-hours per day, at an annual cost of about $168—very close to the Energy Star estimate.  That compares to about $500 for a traditional electric water heater, or $300 for a gas unit.

Energy efficiency has also lived up to expectations in the first three weeks of operation.  With two people taking long showers and running plenty of laundry, the Rheem hybrid unit has consistently used a little more than 3 kilowatt-hours of electricity per day.  That adds up to about 1,200 kilowatt-hours per year, and at 14 cents in Virginia, that’s a cost of about $168—close to the Energy Star label of $149 in estimated annual operating cost.  A traditional electric unit would cost about $500 a year to operate, more than three times as much, and a gas unit would cost about $300, twice as much.

The heat pump technology built into a hybrid unit is backed by a nine-year warranty.

The heat-pump technology built into a hybrid unit is not new, but it is inherently more complex than a gas-fueled or traditional electric unit, which are both extremely reliable.  The Rheem hybrid is backed by a nine-year warranty and Rheem’s reputation for quality engineering—along with the backing of Home Depot as the seller and a high-quality local installer available for any maintenance that might be needed in the future.

Summary

We couldn’t be more pleased with the switch from gas to electric for our water heating. 

The hybrid is the best of both worlds—an energy-efficient unit in normal operation, with an option to switch to a traditional electric heating element if needed. 

As part of our electrification transition, we’ve eliminated the second biggest source of emissions from our home, while reducing our annual operating costs.  The Rheem electric hybrid heat-pump water heater provides plentiful hot water, with lots of assurance that running out should never be a concern.  The unit includes a useful WIFI-enabled phone app to monitor hot water levels and energy usage, with the capability to switch operating mode if needed to sustain adequate hot water during periods of unusual demand. 

The hybrid is the best of both worlds—an energy-efficient unit in normal operation, with an option to switch to a traditional electric heating element if needed. 

The higher upfront cost will be quickly recouped with a combination of lower annual operating costs and Federal tax savings designed to promote energy efficiency and electrification.