Decide the Future of Vehicle Charging Stations Across the Region
SBCAG staff
April 13, 2023, 12:40 pm
12.9k Views
101 Comments
By the Santa Barbara County Association of Governments (SBCAG)
Regional transportation planning officials are inviting feedback on the Central Coast Zero Emission Vehicle Strategy from April 13 to June 9. The draft strategy identifies recommended locations for new vehicle charging stations and unique challenges with zero emission infrastructure in six central coast counties between Ventura, Santa Cruz and San Benito Counties.
The Central Coast Zero Emission Vehicle Strategy will be discussed at an online community workshop at 6:30 p.m. on Thursday, April 20. The public can join the zoom webinar at https://bit.ly/centralcoastzevs or visit www.centralcoastzevstrategy.com for more information. The workshop program will be presented in English with simultaneous interpretation in English and Spanish.
“Santa Barbara County travelers have expressed a strong desire for improved zero-emission infrastructure in our communities, and we are pleased to offer them an opportunity to discuss this important issue,” said Maya Kulkarni, transportation planner for Santa Barbara County Association of Governments. “We are encouraging anyone interested in learning more about what we are prioritizing for zero emission infrastructure to participate in various online forums or face- to-face meetings over the next few months.”
California announced a requirement in August 2022 that all new passenger cars and light trucks sold in the state must be electric vehicles or plug-in hybrids by 2035.
Insight drawn from over 7,000 visits to an online interactive mapping tool last Fall helped shape the central coast strategy.
Santa Barbara County saw a high volume of requests for charging infrastructure at shopping centers, recreation sites, and along the U.S. Highway 101. Participants noted that the lack of charging stations on U.S. Highway 101 Southbound and U.S. Highway 166.
The strategy was also informed by meaningful information gained from in-depth focus groups, designed to gain valuable feedback and ideas on how to move forward.
“It’s clear from the feedback we received in Santa Barbara County that workplace charging infrastructure is lagging behind demand, and this is an issue that needs to be addressed,” said Jenelle Osborne, chair of Santa Barbara County Association of Governments and Lompoc mayor “The absence of charging facilities in multi-family housing developments is also proving to be a significant obstacle for some drivers to make the switch to electric vehicles and highlights the need for investment in more charging solutions which are tailored specifically for these types of living environments.”
Santa Barbara County Association of Governments, Association of Monterey Bay Governments, and San Luis Obispo Council of Governments, partnered to develop the Central Coast Zero Emission Vehicle Strategy along with the counties of Ventura, Santa Barbara, San Luis Obispo, Monterey Santa Cruz, and San Benito in the California Central Coast. The strategy will be considered for approval by the Santa Barbara County Association of Governments Board of Directors in July.
Central coast transportation planning officials are gearing up to take advantage of the strategy’s recommendations to seek public and private funding that will support the expansion of electric vehicle charging infrastructure throughout the region to support the traveling public.
The public is invited to provide feedback and engage in a conversation about the draft strategy during three upcoming virtual and in-person meetings:
• Virtual Workshop at 6:30 p.m. on April 20 via Zoom Webinar at https://bit.ly/centralcoastzevs. The workshop program will be presented in English with simultaneous interpretation in English and Spanish.
• Santa Barbara County Association of Governments Board of Directors meeting at 10 a.m. on May 18 and July 20 in Santa Maria at the Board of Supervisors Hearing Room at 511 East Lakeside Parkway, Santa Maria, CA 93455. Details on how to participate remotely in Santa Barbara and online will be published on the SBCAG Board of Directors agenda at least 48 hours prior to the meeting available at www.sbcag.org
Comments on the draft Central Coast Zero Emission Vehicle Strategy can also be submitted in writing until 5 p.m. on Friday, June 9. Written comments can be submitted via U.S. Postal Service to 260 N. San Antonio Road, Suite B, Santa Barbara, CA 93110; or electronically by emailing info@sbcag.org. The public can also add comments to the online interactive map, which can be accessed through the project website.
The public can visit www.centralcoastzevstrategy.com for further information and to view the draft strategy and access the online interactive map, all of which will be available by April 13.
Written by SBCAG staff
Comments
5 Comments deleted by Administrator
Leave a Review or Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.
101 Comments
I always get downvoted for posting the amount of energy CA derives from fossil fuels, nuclear and other inconvenient truths. This data is for the entire year. Inside the numbers, there were days where solar and renewables dominated, particularly during the spring when sunshine dominates and it is warm enough not to need heat and cool enough not to need air conditioning . But for the total year, night, day cold hot and in between
Nuclear 8.5%
Natural gas 50.2%
Coal 0.2%
https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/california-electricity-data/2021-total-system-electric-generation
I disagree that paying extra for clean renewables on the coast means anything. That is simply moving the problem from SB County CA to Inland CA. Sorry, it does make people feel better about themselves. Think of it like helping obesity. If I give my ice cream scoop to someone else, that doesn’t reduce obesity, it makes me less obese, and while simultaneously increasing the obesity of the other person
As long as these charging stations are powered by mostly fossil fuel sources, th EVs are still essentially running on oil and gas. Actually even less efficient than putting the fuel directly into the vehicle…
The good thing is that most of our region is powered by 100% clean and renewable electricity through our local community choice organizations, including city of Santa Barbara through SB Clean Energy, and most of Ventura county through Clean Power Alliance. The rest of Santa Barbara county, and up through SLO and all the way to Santa Cruz is powered by Central Coast Community Energy, who are making fast progress of 60% renewables by 2025 and 100% by 2030, which is 15 years before California’s goal of 100% clean and renewable by 2045. They are signing new contracts for solar, wind, geothermal, and battery storage, so this is real new renewables.
Also, many EVs get 120 mpg equivalent, which is much better than a gas car, so they would be even more efficient even if they were running on an all fossil fueled grid. They also have zero tailpipe emissions and don’t pollute in our urban environment, which is great for when we are walking or biking and cars are going by. BAS4241, instead of regurgitating fossil fuel company talking points, can you please do your research?
BAS – good thing you’re statement is not correct!
No, he’s not.
Internal combustion engines are at most 40% efficient, so even if we’re so stupid as to keep generating electricity from fossil fuels, we can still deliver the energy more efficiently as electricity, albeit with some transmission losses and the inherent inefficiency of combustion.
The smart path is electricity generated by sources that essentially free, like wind, geothermal, hydro, tidal, and solar. Storage for intermittent sources can be relatively simple gravitational and thermal batteries. And since the sources are free, efficiency of storage and delivery are less of an issue.
NUKE – totally missed the point. The thing that is not correct is this: ” EVs are still essentially running on oil and gas. Actually even less efficient than putting the fuel directly into the vehicle…”
EVs are not “essentially” using oil and gas, nor are EVs less fuel efficient than ICE cars. Not sure what you’re looking at.
Nationally, our electric energy generation mix is:
38% natural gas
22% coal
20% nuclear
20% renewables
So, BAS is mostly correct.
I am sure all those SB workers, like the gardeners, housekeepers, elderly care CNA’s, restaurant staff, hotel staff, THAT ALL LIVE IN LOMPOC AND SANTA MARIA is so happy with The Man telling them to buy $60,000 high maintence electric vehicles while making min. wages and driving 120 miles RT daily to go to WORK (work not WOKE).
Yep, I have had a full EV for five years. My maintenance expense has been tires. For five years. Just…tires.
Tell me more about maintenance Coast.
Coast—-HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
“High Maintenance”.
Nope.
Also, why buy a 60k EV when you can buy a 35k hybrid. If you are literally driving 120 miles RT, a hybrid will be much better over time.
How privileged of you Alex, thank you for showing us all your amazing virtue and sacrifices you’re making for the environment.
Unlike you.
High maintenance? You’re obviously clueless. I’ve had an EV for a year and a half, and it’s cost about $85 in maintenance over that time: A tire rotation and topping off the windshield wiper fluid. That’s on top of all the savings not paying for fossil fuel. And don’t trot out the usual lies that our electricity is primarily from coal and oil.
How exactly is it “privileged” to drive an EV? I have done that at a lower cost than owning an ICE car, when I drove a Leaf for four years.
Keep your class war politics and envy out of it, you’re irrational jealousy and anger don’t make the maintenance cost on my EV any higher than they actually are.
When was the last time an oil company had a single event that caused almost 300,00 acres to burn? Over 1000 buildings destroyed? More than 20 deaths directly or indirectly? Just switching monopoly’s wont fix the problem.
SAIL – I’m really, REALLY curious as to what you’re talking about. Can you elaborate?
Undoubtedly a fantasy event sailing in from social media.
2:48 – Likely. It’s a becoming more than annoying lately seeing claims from our resident righties that are so lacking in any factual basis. They make claims as though they are fact, regardless of mountains of actual, verified facts presented to counter them. We are slipping (already slipped) into a world where truth means only what you think it means, actual facts/stats/numbers be damned.
One of my favorite examples is from our favorite anti-“renewable” guy who has claimed – more than once – that solar and wind energy is “dirtier” than fossil fuels. Jeepers.
If I had to guess, I bet our fantasy sailor is trying to blame the devastating fires in northern California on evil electricity from renewable sources.
Really SACJON? Follow the broken power lines back to a hydroelectric plant.
SAIL – it rhymes with “pope” and starts with an “n.”
SAIL – lol thanks for the “help,” but renewable energy didn’t cause that. You’ve got to be joking.
SACJON, Ill help you out. It rhymes with Thomas Fire!!
Ah….. so the water caused it! Brilliant! Wow, you must be like some kind of genius or something? Did you tell the authorities to destroy the water? Absolutely riveting, really! It was the water (aka renewable energy) that caused the lines to come into contact with each other? Or wait….. no….. it was the WIND! Yup, that hippy wind strikes again and caused a fire. Down with renewable fire causing energy! bwahahaha!
“A high wind event caused the power lines to come into contact with each other, creating an electrical arc. The electrical arc deposited hot, burning or molten material onto the ground, in a receptive fuel bed, causing the fire.” — https://vcfd.org/news/vcfd-determines-cause-of-the-thomas-fire/#:~:text=A%20high%20wind%20event%20caused,fuel%20bed%2C%20causing%20the%20fire.
SAIL – um…… ? The Piper Alpha disaster killed 167 people. The Alexander L. Kielland disaster killed over 100 people. Here’s some more oil disasters you forgot about:
https://robertsmarkland.com/blog/7-of-the-worst-oil-rig-disasters-of-all-time/
https://www.britannica.com/list/9-of-the-biggest-oil-spills-in-history
Aside from being wildly wrong, what are you getting at? What solar or wind farm burned 330K acres, destroyed 1000 buildings, with over 20 dead?
i wonder how the ev mandate replaces the lost gas tax revenues that maintain the roads.
or assume there is to be a kw tax on cars.
and send a bill to ev owners to pay for their highway usage.
nobody likes freeloaders.
so there should be an easy to use app.
or use gps and car computer data.
can we all just admit that the “No Nukes” movement set the environment back 40 years. Let’s put Elon on the task of a complete nuclear grid and he would have it knocked out in 5 years.
Nuclear has the potential to provide safe, clean, and reliable low cost power to everyone 24/7 without covering tens of thousands at acres of land with solar panels and windmills and without the environmental impacts of rare earth mining that make so-called renewable energy a bit less renewable than the name might imply. Unfortunately, it seems there is a lot more money to be made with wind, solar, and batteries. The so-called renewable energy program is a bonanza for the rare earth mining business, and the mandates that go with it have caused oil and gas prices to skyrocket making it a bonanza for the petroleum industry as well. It’s not as if wind and solar can replace oil and gas, but they can certainly make oil and gas more profitable. As a result, so t expect to see any nuclear plants being built anytime soon, at least not in this country.
Fission energy is hugely expensive, excruciatingly slow to come online, and produces extremely hazardous waste products that persist for millennia. Just the things we need!
CHIP – “without the environmental impacts…..” – lol yeah…. Go check out Chernobyl and get back to us on the no “environmental impacts.”
The primary metals in EV batteries include Nickel, Lithium, Cobalt, Copper and Rare Earth metals (Neodymium and Dysprosium). The mining of these materials, their use in manufacturing and their ultimate disposal all present significant environmental challenges. Ninety percent of the ICE lead-acid batteries are recycled while only five percent of the EV lithium-ion batteries are.
Many of the materials prominent in the clean energy revolution are obtained through open-pit horizontal mining which is extremely damaging to wide areas of the environment, and are extracted in countries with little or no environmental or pollution regulations.
Nickel, a major component of the EV batteries, is found just below the topsoil in the Rainforests of Indonesia and the Philippines. As a result, the nickel is extracted using horizontal surface mining that results in extensive environmental degradation: deforestation and removal of the top layer of soil. It should be noted that Rainforests play a major role in “fighting climate change” by removing Carbon Dioxide from the atmosphere through photosynthesis.
Over half of the world’s Lithium reserves are found in three South American countries that border the Andes Mountains: Chile, Argentina and Bolivia. These countries are collectively known as the “Lithium Triangle”.
According to the Institute for Energy Research, Lithium is found in salt flats in very arid areas which complicates the mining process. A multi-mineral mixture containing Lithium is removed from beneath the salt flats. The Lithium extraction from the mixture is a lengthy, 12 to 18 months, evaporation process that is water intensive. Each ton of lithium produced requires 500,000 gallons of water. Besides the discarded mineral salt mixture, the process can result in water and soil contamination plus a depleted water table.
It should be noted that the United States is 4th in total Lithium reserves behind the Lithium Triangle countries. However, NIMBY environmental protests to “Save the Planet” have stymied efforts to develop the US Lithium market. It seems that our provincial “Earth-Firsters” want to maintain a pristine US, but have no problem turning a blind eye to the environmental exploitation of third world countries.
The Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) produces 70% of the world’s Cobalt. While there is no shortage of environmental issues with its Cobalt mining, the overriding problem here is human rights: dangerous working conditions and the use of child labor. Cobalt is a toxic metal. Prolonged exposure and inhalation of Cobalt dust can lead to health issues of the eyes, skin, and lungs. Because Cobalt can be easily extracted from the ground by hand, small scale, bare-bones “artisanal” mines are common. The simplicity of the operation discourages/negates the need for occupational safety measures and encourages the use of child labor.
According to the Wilson Center, “small-scale mining in the DRC involves people of all ages, including children, obligated to work under harsh conditions. Of the 255,000 Congolese mining for cobalt, 40,000 are children, some as young as six years.”
Amnesty International has also made similar comments. “Thousands of children mine cobalt in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Despite the potentially fatal health effects of prolonged exposure to cobalt, adult and child miners work without even the most basic protective equipment.”
Chile is the leading producer of the world’s Copper. The vast majority of Chile’s Copper comes from open-pit/strip mines. This type of mining negatively affects vegetation, topsoil, wildlife habitats, and groundwater. The next three largest producers of copper are Peru, China, and the infamous Democratic Republic of the Congo. Number five happens to be the United States. Several states in particular, such as Minnesota and Arizona, show promise as new sources for domestic copper using underground mining instead of open-pit mining.
However, on January 26th, the Biden Administration canceled two copper mining leases in Minnesota.
What is needed, however, is an honest and comprehensive evaluation of the entire life cycle of clean energy from raw materials through disposition. There are pros and cons to all forms of energy. To date, all we have heard are the benefits of clean energy. It is now time to highlight the true costs of clean energy which must include the negative societal and environmental impact as well.
Here’s a great recent article about cobalt mining in the Congo from NPR. One of the highlights:
“We shouldn’t be transitioning to the use of electric vehicles at the cost of the people and environment of one of the most downtrodden and impoverished corners of the world,” he says. “The bottom of the supply chain, where almost all the world’s cobalt is coming from, is a horror show.”
https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2023/02/01/1152893248/red-cobalt-congo-drc-mining-siddharth-kara
Still, nowhere near the environmental damage caused by fossil energy.
Sac, if you’re worried about radioactive contamination of the environment you should be very concerned about cobalt mining. Here the Washington post explains how mining regions in the Congo are suffering from radioactive contamination from uranium as a result of cobalt mining. Are you actually concerned about the environment and human rights, or do you really just support the rare earth mining industry and the exploitation of the mineral wealth of impoverished countries?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/in-sight/wp/2018/02/28/the-cost-of-cobalt/
So much misinformation here. The cost per megawatt of nuclear plants over its lifetime is extremely low. The waste product produced is easily and safely stored. Bringing up Chernobyl is like bringing up plane crashes in the 1940’s and saying air travel today isn’t safe. GARFISH is right, the no nuke fear mongering has pushed out our reliance on fossil fuels by half a century.
Chip, are you angry that some people can afford 80-100k cars, or are you angry that you can’t?
Just kidding.
The issues that you raise around the process of mining these rare metals are entirely valid. People are concerned. People spent about a century not giving two shits about the massive human and environmental damage of petroleum extraction–now suddenly here you are.
Huh.
Beyond that, please explain the process for recycling petroleum fuels once cars finish burning them.
Oh, wait. That’s not possible?
Now explain recycling and reuse of EV batteries and their materials. Yep, you guessed it, that is in fact possible and many companies are moving forward with that.
You want the EV/battery industry to be ahead of the petroleum industry when it is really about twenty years old in its consumer application. It’s ridiculous.
As usual, the twits here are ignoring new developments.
https://www.bnl.gov/newsroom/news.php?a=120847
No cobalt needed.
5:26 – Easily and safely stored? Radioactive waste? What planet are you from?
To use one of your favorite rhetorical (but not really meaningful) ploys – When you’re willing to store nuclear waste under your bed, maybe sane people will consider fission power to have removed strike #3. Strikes #1 and #2 remain, however.
Guess y’all missed the previous conversations in other threads you were ostensibly part of, where it was shown conclusively that non-carbon energy and electric vehicles were less costly than all the subsidies and drawbacks of fossil fuels.
Either that, or it’s willful ignorance.
Planet reality (not often visited here in the echo chamber that is EdHat). Google dry cask storage and pick your preferred source of information, if I gave you a direct link as usual you’ll call it some silly name and discredit the information based on the source without actually reading in. You can even tour some nuclear power plants and walk right up to them.
10:50 – oh they know. You could show them the sky was blue and they’d counter with a YouTube “documentary” showing the sky is actually run by Chinese ANTIFA wind turbines.
GARFISH – lol no.
Germany has had problems with excess power from wind and solar, so this will give it a place to go.
1) when the alternative is fossil fuels, fission is safer. Far far safer and way better for the environment. 2) everyone who has solar and wind has a problem with excess power, that is exactly the problem, to much power at the wrong times and too little when needed. The incompetence here is astounding.
@ 10:39
Consult the Nuclear Regulatory Commission before you dump more high-level waste on the forum.
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/radwaste.html
Yes, your incompetence is indeed astounding. Again, let us know when you’re planning to let fission waste, the high-level radionuclides, not the stuff in the glass casks, be stored under your bed.
In related news…today Germany is shutting down its last 3 nuclear power plants. 30% of their power is already derived from coal, shutting down these plans will only increase their reliance on coal to power their EV’s. “Science”.
They do smart things there. Tells you a bit about how dangerous fission power is.
In other good news:
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20230414-climate-change-why-2023-is-a-clean-energy-milestone
10AM doesn’t know the definition of oligarch, nor unstable.
Fact: more people are killed each year from wind turbines than have ever been killed in nuclear power accidents.
I do, you don’t seem to realize our government, including our mentally unstable puppet of a president, are oligarch controlled.
The unstable puppet of Putin hasn’t been president for a while now. Wake up!
Let’s put a mentally unstable oligarch in charge of the nuclear grid lmao. You people are profoundly out to lunch
1:19 brings us another fantasy fact from social media.
Biden?
To be fully truthful, ala VOR’s definition, one would have to admit that nuclear fission has killed hundreds of thousands since mid-1945.
And yet it is a stunning example of the dangers of fission power.
Fact: VOICE once again, has nothing. Sorry not sorry kid, I am not doing your homework again for you. You proclaim it’s a “Fact” that more people die each year from wind turbines than have ever died from nuclear disasters. Cool. Then you should know EXACTLY how many people die a year from wind turbines. If you can’t provide that number then, once again, you are a LIAR.
I don’t think that’s a fair argument to blame the Chernobyl disaster on the inherent dangers of nuclear power. The USSR plant was built with flawed reactors and operated by untrained personnel. Saying it is an example of the dangers of nuclear power is like blaming the situation of Zaporishzhia (sp?) in Ukraine, the largest power plant in Europe, threatened by Russia, as an example of the dangers of nuclear power.
Fun fact: coal contributes far more radiation to the environment than nuclear power stations. Yet we still use coal for 20% of our energy needs in the US. Absolutely crazy. The best time to start building new nuclear power plants was a 20 years ago, the second best time is today. Oh, and here’s a link for those who are google challenged: https://www.sciencefocus.com/science/do-coal-fired-power-stations-produce-radioactive-waste/
Fun deflection.
@ 2:40, very disengeious, i specifically said nuclear power to differentiate it from nuclear weapons. It is still a fact, more people die each year from wind turbines than have ever been killed in a nuclear power accidents.
VOICE – “It is still a fact, more people die each year from wind turbines than have ever been killed in a nuclear power accidents.” – Great, now tell us what those numbers are.
“disengeious” – that’s a good one.
Here, maybe I can help you with your “fact’s” source. Was it the same website where CHIP was informed that wind and solar are dirtier than oil and gas?
Oh, so you DO know how to use Google. Great, now show us the number of ANNUAL (that means per year) deaths caused by wind turbines.
167 accidents per year from 2013-17 (from wind turbines) https://www.power-technology.com/features/most-dangerous-jobs-in-the-energy-sector/
Nuclear power has literally saved hundreds of thousands of lives, if those nuclear plants weren’t around, fossil fuel plants would have had to take it’s place. READ: https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/es3051197
Oops! Counting construction and maintenance accidents as part of blaming wind turbine energy for being dangerous, but not counting them for the maintenance and construction of nuclear power plants is a bit “disengeious”, don’t you think?
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rates-from-energy-production-per-twh
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2013/09/29/forget-eagle-deaths-wind-turbines-kill-humans/?sh=6ab310925467
4:11 – And just think, fission power could keep killing for thousands of years. That’s hard to top!
4:20 – of course it is!
BRAVO! Finally…. was it really that hard? Jeez, such a fuss about something you clearly had already looked up.
Now…. how many of those were actually caused by the power source? If you’re comparing deaths from the energy source, saying nuclear is safer than wind power, it’s a different story.
Further, comparing construction related deaths to something that is being built exponentially every day across the world as opposed to construction deaths from the few nuclear plants that have already been built isn’t super equitable. I mean, how much construction (an inherently dangerous activity in and of itself) is taking place for nuclear plants compared to how much construction is happening in the wind industry?
But, I’ll let it slide though. You actually provided sources, so I’ll give you that. As to the veracity of the assumption that wind power is more dangerous than nuclear power….eh another time.
Ok, I can’t just give you props for citing sources. You also proved yourself wrong all in one go!
“The main danger associated with the nuclear industry is the potential radiation effects of the materials mined. ….. A study from The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, which looked at 3,238 uranium miners who worked underground for at least one month, reported 371 deaths from lung cancer, six times more than the expected figure. Similarly, 41 pneumoconiosis deaths were reported, 24 times higher than predicted and 13 deaths from tuberculosis were reported, four times higher than anticipated.
Overall, the group found that 1,595 of the miners died from mining-related health conditions.” https://www.power-technology.com/features/most-dangerous-jobs-in-the-energy-sector/
So, using math and logic, 1,595 dead miners who did the work that was NECESSARY for nuclear power (just like the dead wind turbine construction workers) is MORE than the number of deaths PER YEAR for wind turbine accidents. In that sense, your claim is incorrect.
Now, you’ll come back and say you said only “nuclear power accidents,” but I bet those families consider those NECESSARY deaths to be accidental. Wouldn’t you?
If you want to compare construction accidents, nuclear beats wind. If you want to wind turbine disasters to nuclear power disasters, it is still incorrect. There have been no wind turbine disasters other than fires which have killed no where near more PER YEAR than nuclear disasters.
Claim: “more people die each year from wind turbines than have ever been killed in a nuclear power accidents.”
Facts: 167 per year from wind turbine construction. Over 1,595 deaths from uranium mining. Source: https://www.power-technology.com/features/most-dangerous-jobs-in-the-energy-sector/
167 < at least 1,595 + all deaths from Chernobyl, 3 Mile, Fukushima
At it again, bringing up politics when it’s not about politics. Ouch, must be painful again.
VOICE – if that is a “Fact” please provide a source. How many have died from wind turbines each year?
Just because you say it’s a “Fact” doesn’t make it so.
I’ll answer your question Alex-Tesla? Maybe 35k is unaffordable for the average commuter. We’re talking out front costs here, not long term economic stuff. Cash. Be real.
Would you also think about giving them a subsidized “affordable” house in SB so they don’t have to commute?
Still haven’t learned how to reply to a comment, eh?
Pass it on to Alex for me if you want.
Just more FUD from an oilie. The Prius has efficient cruise control, very comfortable seating, and a smooth ride.
Basic–
Now you’re going to try and layer in a bunch of details that don’t reflect what is likely really going on.
“Hauling equipment” to SB. Every day? HAHAHAHAH!!!
How many commuters do you think are hauling equipment.
Beyond that, I have hauled very heavy stuff in my Model Y, can get as much in that vehicle as anyone driving a sedan.
And oh commuting in a Prius sucks. Come on, man, commuting in almost anything sucks. And what are these working class commuters who can’t afford to buy a Tesla commuting in? Mercedes sedan? 80k Ford truck?
Your point is just stupid no matter how much you try to backtrack off of it.
And yeah you’re bitter and no I don’t think you’re coming up with 150k cash to buy vehicles today.
The 11:44 commenter doesn’t know that the Model Y is cavernous, and the Model X even more so.
BasicInfo805: I think you bring up and have brought up a number of valid points on this subject and hope that you do not simply give up. Some of the silver-spoon elites here seem to only want to virtue signal their supposed superiority and boast their ability to afford things (EV vehicles) that the vast majority of folks cannot. Please do not buckle under their constant disdain and acute barrage of smugness using their bullying techniques. We’re all on this planet together, but some are hopelessly miserable and want to make others feel miserable as well. In my life-coaching sessions I make a point of making sure that those in attendance leave their insecurities at the door as they are entering into a sacred space where everyone is treated fairly….and with respect. Namaste to all on this wonderful and glorius day!
So then why don’t YOU think commuters aren’t in EV’s as much as you think they should be? What’s your opinion? How about they don’t have time to sit in a place like a Big5 or Costco parking lot for an hour before or after work? The people we see doing that are those that have plenty of time and money. So sure, go ahead and fill your Tesla up with plumbing supplies, painting stuff, landscaping tools, or whatever you want – I don’t see everyday workers doing that at all.
I could too. Lots of us have money saved up.
Not bitter, just trying to express my own opinion. Try it sometime, sans insults.
Basic, by the way, so you could spend your entire life savings on a couple of cars. Way to go, if it were true.
Babycakes:
MWAAAAHHHH. SiLVeR SPooN ElitE vIrTue SIGnaling.
Way to jam every parroted talking point into a single sentence.
Again with nothing of value to say.
Hey, Basic, BTW, I will answer your question. And it will be a real answer even though the factual nature of it will be meaningless for someone so obviously driven by their political agenda as to be irrational.
Commuters aren’t in EVS as much as I would like because:
1. It’s a relatively new technology in the context of wide spreads use (yes I know there were electric cars over a century ago) and most people are nervous about adopting new things.
2. Range anxiety is real–when you don’t understand what ownership on the day to day is really like.
3. Pricing has been much higher than ICE cars.
Answers:
1. People are becoming very comfortable with the tech, surveys show this, that will change quickly over the next five years.
2. Range and charging are getting better all the time and new battery technologies will improve that over the next decade. Also, people will see their friends having minimal issues with range.
3. Pricing is coming down FAST and when people look at gas and repairs, the numbers are becoming very convincing.
Don’t worry amigo, smarter people than you, or me, are figuring this stuff out very quickly.
You see plenty of EVs on the road if you pay attention, and there would be many more if there weren’t right-wing oily media FUDsters spreading lies about EVs to the uninformed public.
I use my EV all the time to haul bulky equipment around town and into the adjoining counties. The rear seats are almost never up, and I have never had to spend an hour at a charge station, since I plan ahead and charge at home.
Basic, why do you make shit up every time you post?
No one needs to charge at Costco for an hour if they are commuting 120 miles roundtrip per day in pretty much any recent or current generation EV out there. Another dumb and dishonest statement, i.e., typical MO.
I comment with insults because I find dishonesty and lazy thinking offensive and frankly I know there is literally no fact that can change your mind–so I’m here for the LOLs.
Sounds realistic. I do understand those points. I don’t have a political agenda, just my own opinions. They’re all across the political map, rather than liberal or conservative. Lots of people are like that, maybe not enough – you just don’t always realize it.
Wait, wait. Babycakes is a life coach?
Okay, I’ll just leave that right there.
Namaste Bitches.
Basic, so why are you so triggered by a car charger opening up?
Also, Alex Tesla? What? Oh, because I own a Tesla? Yep, I do. I started with a Leaf, which I paid under 30k for and drove all over town and didn’t spend a penny on gas or maintenance.
You’re just bitter.
Basic, no, sorry, you’re just wrong. You can lease a 2023 Prius for 2k down and 420 a month.
An ICE Honda Accord will lease at 2k down and 405.00 a month.
If you lease the Prius for 15.00 less, you will be ahead after the first couple weeks of your commute.
You can lease a Bolt for 500.00 a month. If you are driving 600 miles a week at 35 mpg, at 17 gallons a week, at 5.00 a gallon, so 85.00 a week, 340.00 a month.
You are doing much better financially with either a hybrid or EV if you re driving 600 miles a week.
You literally just post crap without even thinking about it, it’s so lazy.
I get all those numbers. Hell I can buy 3 Teslas today. So lose that “bitter” name calling bs. What I’m saying is that I don’t believe the majority of folks who are workers commuting back and forth to SB are doing that. Try and haul any kind of equipment that does work here in SB in a Tesla – tools, pipe, concrete, tile, drywall….you get the idea.
Don’t get pissed at me, I’m just trying to explain to you why we don’t live in your version of reality.
Average joe/Jane commuter? Sure – maybe they can buy that Prius, assuming they WANT TO. Commuting hours in a Prius does suck, I can tell you from experience.
3:04–valid and at the same time, one could make the argument that, if in fact the transition away from ICE vehicles is a net social and environmental benefit, early adopters are already subsidizing the transition through acquisition costs. If EVs are on balance 30 percent (just a ballpark) more money than a traditional vehicle, which may net out to more cost to the user than the gasoline taxes used for maintenance (haven’t looked at the numbers), then EV owners are already being “taxed” to facilitate the transition to cleaner transportation.
We should, therefore, raise gasoline taxes to pay to subsidize low-income purchases of EVs, at least until the majority of vehicles on the road are EVs. A double incentive.
Not Basic, but I oppose public space being given over to private vehicles unless those E vehicle owners are charged equivalently to non-E vehicles owner for road usage and other public lands wear and tear. When the vast majority of vehicles are E-vehicles, as the state government wants, who will pay for road upkeep? Is this being done anywhere and, if so, how does it work? As it is, those of us with old or older low mpg vehicles, mostly low income people, pay disproportionately more for road upkeep and it is not fair.