Post New

Here’s why so many Republicans won’t buy EVs
Democrats say they are way more likely than Republicans to buy electric cars. Could that change?

 But there is one thing holding the nation back from the dream of an 
all-electric future: political polarization. Sales data have consistently 
shown that while Democrats have been buying the new cars in droves, 
Republicans haven’t jumped onto the EV-buying train.

“The Republican is like, ‘They’re trying to ban gas cars — I’m not going to 
buy a Biden-mobile,’” said Mike Murphy, a former Republican strategist who 
runs the nonprofit EV Politics Project, which attempts to counter misinformation 
on electric cars and encourage conservatives to adopt the vehicles.

According to a Gallup poll conducted in March of this year, 61 percent of 
Democrats reported that they were “seriously considering” or “might consider” 
buying an EV in the future — compared to only 24 percent of Republicans. At the 
same time, 69 percent of Republicans said that they “would not buy” an EV in 
future, compared to 27 percent of Democrats. The difference in Democratic 
and Republican respondents who owned an EV was within the margin of error. 

Gift link: https://wapo.st/3wqshcl

There are some interesting charts included in the article which you may find helpful in visualizing the issue.

Without unhelpful partisan rancor, comments welcome:

What all too often doesn't get considered on the topic of ubiquitous battery cars, and this WaPo piece is no different, is the context of battery car ubiquity.

Our electric grid can't handle the load imposed on it by battery car ubiquity, nor do we have, currently, the generation capacity, even could the grid carry it. Wind and solar farms are too unreliable to supply the ubiquitous battery car demand, along with all the current demands from powering our homes to powering our businesses, with data centers and AI centers already sorely taxing the system, even were the grid eventually built out.

Producing the battery car components is enormously destructive of our environment, from mining the metals and minerals--lithium and nickel especially are toxic--through disposing of the tailings, through refining those metals and minerals--which is more electricity demand from the grid and from generation of the electricity--through to disposing of the even more toxic batteries at end-of-life, and it's a short life for batteries.

Then there's the short range of battery cars between charges and the long time required to recharge. That's improving; it's a technology matter, not an intrinsic one, but the batteries have a long way to go. The extra weight those batteries inflict on suspensions and tires requires specially designed tires (and plussed up suspensions) that wear out faster. There's some heat about wearing tire particles into the atmosphere being net worse than ICE car tires, but it's way too soon to tell on that.

Then there's the human cost of producing battery cars: a very significant fraction of the lithium and nickel that's mined for the batteries is mined with the forced labor of children.

It's just barely possible that folks are considering more concerning battery cars than just the journalistically lazy Republican-Democrat divide.

Eric Hines

There's definitely a mix in my sub-division. A couple of Tesla owners are obvious Republicans (display Trump flags in their garages - not allowed in yards, thankfully). Some others might be, don't know. We are the lone non-Tesla EV owners. 135 homes, 8 Teslas, one Bolt, solidly R area.

I expect more Rs will buy EVs when it makes economic sense, and they might favor Tesla, partly due to made in the USA, and partly due to the CEO.

I do not favor Tesla, partly due to the interior design, and partly due to the CEO. I would prefer made in the USA.

My fantasy EV is a Mazda 3 hatchback using a Tesla RWD drivetrain, built in the USA.

Our electric grid can't handle the load imposed on it by battery car ubiquity, nor do we have, currently, the generation capacity, even could the grid carry it.

Actually, most EVs charge at night in people’s homes (up to 80% by research data) when the grid is underutilized compared to early morning when coffee pots go on and late afternoon with air conditioners. Additionally, EV’s may make up a significant part of the *solution* to the issue, by providing battery power locally rather than having to transport electrons in from out of state.

This NYT article demonstrates how “battery power” is helping manage the load in California:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/05/07/cli...
The article is about “large batteries”, but EV’s are beginning to include 2-way batteries which allow a utility to tap them during peaking conditions. This is not some fantasy, there are businesses forming to allow this sort of “energy transfer” and paying EV owners to do it.

Producing the battery car components is enormously destructive”…

Yep. But when all is said and done, it’s still less destructive that a gas powered car over its lifetime.

Wall Street Journal:

 Are Electric Cars Really Better for the Environment?
EVs produce fewer emissions overall than their gas-powered counterparts, but there are caveats

Are EVs really better for the environment, though? A close look at all the 
factors shows they are—but it’s a complex answer with some asterisks. 

https://www.wsj.com/graphics/are-electric-cars-rea...

Environmental Protection Agency

 Myth #2: Electric vehicles are worse for the climate than gasoline cars because of 
battery manufacturing.

FACT: The greenhouse gas emissions associated with an electric vehicle over its lifetime 
are typically lower than those from an average gasoline-powered vehicle, even when 
accounting for manufacturing.

Some studies have shown that making a typical EV can create more carbon pollution than 
making a gasoline car. This is because of the additional energy required to manufacture an EV’s 
battery. Still, over the lifetime of the vehicle, total GHG emissions associated with manufacturing,

 charging, and driving an EV are typically lower than the total GHGs 
associated with a gasoline car. That’s because EVs have zero tailpipe emissions and 
are typically responsible for significantly fewer GHGs during operation (see Myth 1 above) 

https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/electric-vehicle...

MIT analysis:

 Are electric vehicles definitely better for the climate than gas-powered cars?

Yes: although electric cars' batteries make them more carbon-intensive to manufacture than 
gas cars, they more than make up for it by driving much cleaner under nearly any conditions. 

https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/are-electric-vehic...

There’s the short range of battery cars and the long time to recharge…”

Newer models are coming out with far more range that gas cars, and charging times at power chargers are between 10-20 minutes.

 Toyota announces new electric car battery which could cut charging time to under 10 minutes 

https://www.euronews.com/green/2023/06/13/toyota-a...

For the record, EVs catch fire less often than ICE cars and are somewhat cheaper to operate. They are not without faults, obviously, and tire wear is one of them. They also don’t pay gas taxes for road upkeep, something states are dealing with by charging (much) more for registration renewal.

Anyway, you seem to have been convinced by a whole bunch of myths and shibboleths. Are you a Republican who only gets their news from siloed news sources?

You're hanging your hat on climate risks, when you, apparently, and so many other climate worriers ignore the context of climate warming, which lets the matter of why we should be worried at all go by the wayside.

Minor things, of which I've posted before, like how we're cooler today than the geologic warming trend of our planet 11k years after the last glaciation; atmospheric CO2, the GHG about which so much worrying is done, has been much higher in past epochs, and the climate was both much warmer in those periods than today and life was lush, and much colder than today, and life was...not lush; and ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica indicate that atmospheric CO2 rises occur contemporaneously with or after planetary warming has begun.

Then, buried at the end of your response comes your--all too typical of others in these sorts of discussions--ad hominem remark. That greatly deprecates your seriousness.

Eric Hines

Ignore the climate change and resource arguments and consider EVs on their ownership merits. Electric cars are cheap to run, very reliable, very convenient for everyday use, and fun to drive.

In my particular case I sold my fun hatchback, a Golf GTI, and bought an electric fun hatchback, the Chevy Bolt. 200HP, instant torque. The Bolt cost less than the GTI, and this was before the latest tax credit. It's now done 60k miles. Maintenance cost has been one set of tires from Costco. That's it.

We are getting 3.5 miles/kWh and pay 10.6 cents per KWh by always charging at home. For the same cost in electricity as a gallon of gas at $3.60/gallon, we can go approximately $3.60/0.106*3.5 = 119 miles. That's a bit better than the 25mpg in the GTI.

Shortcomings? None really for our intended use. We have an ICE van for long trips and hauling stuff.

Minor things, of which I've posted before, like how we're cooler today than the geologic warming trend of our planet 11k years after the last glaciation; atmospheric CO2, the GHG about which so much worrying is done, has been much higher in past epochs, and the climate was both much warmer in those periods than today and life was lush, and much colder than today, and life was...not lush; and ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica indicate that atmospheric CO2 rises occur contemporaneously with or after planetary warming has begun.

No one disputes that the planet has been colder, and warmer, at other times in its history. There was once a giant snowball earth, and at other times a hellish landscape of fire and magma everywhere. Luckily neither of those two extremes are true at the moment, and we are in the Goldilocks era for human (and animal) habitation.

It seems that some don’t care whether we tend toward one extreme or the other, but what is clear is that once a trend develops it’s *devilishly* hard to reverse. Therefore it seems prudent to monitor such a trend, and if possible, and with minor inconvenience, try to keep the environment more or less where it is today, rather than wait so long and then realize you’ve gone past the tipping point and will have to wait another 4,000,000 years for things to come back into balance.

It is a fact that mankind is dumping about 1,000,000 years worth of sequestered carbon into the atmosphere every 365 days via coal and hydrocarbons in auto exhaust, cruise ship emissions, heating byproducts, factory output, electricity production and the like - and there is a reasonable hypothesis that this is having an effect on the amount of heat trapped within the atmosphere. Scientists can find other times when there was more, but - and this is important - they can find no time when it shifted as rapidly and decisively as it has over the past decades.

Therefore, a prudent person, like a prudent investor, considers the possible outcomes, and perhaps makes a rational decision to come to grips with possible solutions. Some investors are downright stupid, or so recalcitrant that they refuse to do so, and they reap the rewards. Unfortunately in the case of the environment those “rewards” will be borne by future generations.

Then, buried at the end of your response, comes your adhominem remark. That greatly deprecates your seriousness.

I’ve always sort of thought that if it’s true, it’s not ad hominem. It’s more like “pointing out motivation.” YMMV, unfortunately.

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.