Blue Books are out. An actual factual basis for EV adoption, followed by how we should NOT be making these decisions. CO Supreme Court still mum on rule 24.
My Blue Book came Friday. That means yours will be soon (if not already in your hands).
Read carefully, make considered decisions, and, whether we line up on everything or no, don't forget to vote.
If you're ever unsure of how to vote on something, let me give you the advice my dad gave me (which came from his dad, my grandpa): vote no. If you're unsure vote no because that always leaves the chance to revisit something later.
Do EV's have the potential to do what internal combustion (ICE) vehicles do?
The short answer is yes.
There's a but though. The "but" is that they won't really be able to do this for a while.
If you read my posts on solid state batteries the link below will be familiar. It was one of the resources I leaned pretty heavily on.
This post is another trip to the well because there was a discussion of EV's and when they'll be feasible that I wanted to cover.
This is not because I'm 100% sure on this gentleman's numbers. I say that because this is the first time that I personally have encountered a discussion of the issue that didn't lean on the two polar extremes of "they'll never replace ICE!" and "we need to electrify everything immediately!".
That is, what you see here has a rationale and, whether you agree with the rationale and the calculations, I think the thought that went into this and the framework it presents are worth sharing and holding up as an example of where our discussion should center.
Let's dive in. Let me walk you through this gentleman's arguments.
Let's start with basic physics. If you intend to replace ICE vehicles with EV's, and you expect people to buy them, they'll need to be an apples for apples trade. One good metric to look at in that sense is energy density.
Energy density is a good metric because it is a relative number that removes details like car size, battery size, etc. It allows for a fair relative comparison between energy delivery methods. Energy Density is defined as the energy per unit mass of chemical (gasoline in this case) or in a battery.
Take a look at screenshots 1 and 2. The author here ran a calculation for energy density for a variety of ways you can power EV's and then compared it to gasoline as way to power a car. The only difference between 1 and 2 is that in screenshot 1 the author included a theoretical maximum (purple bars) along with current state of the art (red bars), whereas in screenshot 2 he rescaled and put only the current state of the art red bars.
It's pretty clear that, especially when you consider the state of the art now, that there are batteries and battery technologies that rival gasoline for energy density and thus have the potential to replace it as a source of motive energy. If you're curious to see where the solid state lithium batteries I covered at length fit, they are the third one down from the top. Not fully there yet, but close enough to be a contender.
Now take a look at screenshot 3. Lots to look at so, let's go step by step.
First, across the top, you'll see what I already hinted at earlier: drivers will accept EV's when it's apples to apples for the current cars you see on the roads.
Further down, you'll see this author defines apples to apples as being when EV's can match the approximate per mile cost of a regular car of 24 cents per mile and a range of 250 miles plus. I'm not sure where these numbers come from, but they seem reasonable: that's about what the IRS allows for depreciation and is reasonable for a regular vehicle's range on one tank.
In the chart, you'll see a circle around the value of 27 cents per mile and it's labeled as "Now". The way this chart works is that you read both across and down. Going left you can see that EV's currently now have a cost of $600 per kWh (kilowatt hour a measure of energy capacity). That is the best we have now is coming at a cost of $600 per unit energy.
Reading down, you also note that this cost per mile also corresponds to a range of 100 miles and a battery pack energy of 25 kWh.**
Turning to screenshot 4, you can see where we need to be. It's the same basic table and headers, but the author now included his criteria from above. This is circled as "Large EV Penetration", that is, this will be when lots of customers would want EV's. Note that this region has ranges of 250 miles, pack energies around 63 - 88 kWh, and the price per unit energy has fallen to below $250 per kWh.
Note, too, that he added a row for "Pack Specific Energy" at the bottom. This is battery energy capacity per unit weight. That is, an energy density. Being in the feasible range puts this up near 208 Wh/kg (watt hours per kilogram--don't get thrown here, this is an energy just smaller than KILO Watt hours) and above.
Which, if I go back and revisit the earlier graph in the solid state battery posts I did (here attached as screenshot 5), you can see via the blue line I drew in at about 208 Wh/kg means that we're likely well outside the range of what current batteries can do, though perfecting solid state lithium batteries make this possible.
The one sentence summary of the above?
We're a ways away from EV's being in the regime (as defined by this gentleman) where they'll get wide acceptance. Current technology will not get us there: we need lighter, cheaper batteries that can store the same energy in less space (and weight).
An important caveat that I would add here is that this doesn't mean that EV's have no use. It does mean that we are not going to see widespread acceptance with what's available now.
Another important thing to keep in mind would be the contribution that emotional factors like nostalgia and concerns over the climate would play. Humans do act rationally and do consider money, but I think we're all old enough now to recognize that they also make decisions based on emotion. If enough people get convinced that EV's will help prevent catastrophe, that will bear on buying one even if it's subpar compared to an ICE vehicle.
**Clearly current EV's do better than this but that's because you have multiple battery packs and pay more than $600 for your battery! This is all done, again, with relative numbers and ratios.
https://ehcar.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/rapport206-1.pdf
So, if the above shows you one way we could (should?) go about considering changes to transportation, the below shows how we should NOT do it.
An example of how I DO NOT recommend we make decisions on how we transport ourselves and our goods.
The previous post was an example (albeit not perfect) of a framework for knowing/deciding on and among different transportation options. I liked it because it was a framework and because it had logical, thoughtful criteria.
The article below, sent in by a reader, details the exact opposite.
There's more there, of course, which you're welcome to read about, but the thing that sticks out to me and that makes it relevant to the previous post is the focus on diversity, equity, and inclusion in making transportation decisions.
Thinking like this (prioritizing these things over other concerns) leads to poor choices because the people who traffic in those fields are the kind of people who would label any and all cars as bad.**
I struggle to understand this kind of reduction based on emotion. Cars are tools. Tools have no inherent values in them. They have moral value by virtue of the humans that use them for various ends. And, to wrap up this quasi-syllogism, since there are a variety of humans who use cars for a variety of ends (good and bad), the idea that all cars are bad is not valid.
It's okay to make arguments about cars in general, and I am happy to listen to (note I didn't say agree with, I said listen) a whole variety of perspectives. Yes, let's talk about the relative costs and benefits of depending on single occupancy vehicles. Yes, let's talk about the costs and benefits of EV's vs. internal combustion vehicles in a variety of contexts. I have no problem with that.
What I can't endorse is decision making based on thinking like we see in Buttigieg's equity committee. All the more reason for us to think carefully about who and what we vote for.
**note that, apparently, this includes cars of all propulsion types including EV's.
https://freebeacon.com/energy/all-cars-are-bad-pete-buttigiegs-equity-advisers-want-you-to-stop-driving/
Still no decision on Rule 24 of criminal court procedures in Colorado.
The article linked first below details how the Colorado Supreme Court has still, after the public comment session in February of this year, not yet decided on Rule 24 of the criminal court procedure.
Rule 24 deals with jury selection and the bone of contention has been over whether or not there should be some language or procedure regarding juror selection based on (perceived or real) racial bias.
In yet another example of a disparity that may or may not be discrimination, it has been found that there is a correlation between someone's perceived race and their being peremptorily challenged (thrown off of a jury with no need for a stated reason).
The Colorado Supreme Court (who has the authority in this state to decide on rules for criminal and civil proceedings) is considering changes to the rules regarding jury selection and juror challenges.
First, it's already against the rules and unconstitutional (per a ruling by the US Supreme Court) to explicitly dismiss a juror based on race. The proposed changes here in Colorado would, however, extend this further. Quoting the article:
"Under the proposed change to Rule 24, demeanor-based reasons for striking jurors of color would need the corroboration of the trial judge or the opposing side to be valid. Also, certain non-racial explanations would not, on their own, be sufficient to remove a juror. Those would include if the juror expressed distrust of police, lived in a "high-crime neighborhood," or had prior contact with law enforcement."
Colorado's been at this for a while now. Debate over this rule started in a committee in 2021. The committee produced a report and recommendation but couldn't reach a broad consensus about the rule so the Colorado Supreme Court started again.
On top of that you have uber-Progressives in the Assembly wanting to go at this legislatively (though the latest effort was scrapped after it didn't get enough support.
So, for now we wait. There's one last thing I wanted to share with you.
As usual, my thoughts with things like this turn to the question: "What can you or I do if we want to be involved? How can we speak up?"
I did some digging and came up with the second link below. That's the website that lists all the proposed rules changes to how our state courts do business that are in front of the Colorado Supreme Court.
By my reading, the only way to speak at a hearing is to do so in person, but there are instructions too for how one could supply written comment.
I wrote to the email address listed to see if there was an email list to provide updates. Unfortunately, there is not. Your only option if interested in seeing what rules are up for consideration is to regularly check the website linked second.
For the immediate present, I'm giving serious thought to attending a hearing and giving the Colorado State Supreme court an in-person version of my comments on their performance so far. Will see as to my energy level and schedule.
https://www.coloradopolitics.com/courts/racial-bias-proposal-for-jury-selection-remains-stalled-in-supreme-court/article_39771a56-4752-11ee-9183-1fc89c1f468e.html
https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/Rule_Changes.cfm