How and why did EVs get politicized?

[LeftieBiker]

The idea that Madison Avenue can create a perceived need for EVs, while not inaccurate in itself, is a dead end. Why? Because those EV ads are being paid for by ICE-based car companies (with the tiny exception of Tesla) who want to make it very clear that EVs are a *niche vehicle* and not something they want to supplant sales of their ICE lines. They want to sell X number of them per year, but no more. The advertizing industry has a lot of power, but there is nothing whatsoever that will motivate them to use that power to anger their best customers.

 

[AndyH]

The idea that Madison Avenue can create a perceived need for EVs, while not inaccurate in itself, is a dead end. Why? Because those EV ads are being paid for by ICE-based car companies (with the tiny exception of Tesla) who want to make it very clear that EVs are a *niche vehicle* and not something they want to supplant sales of their ICE lines. They want to sell X number of them per year, but no more. The advertizing industry has a lot of power, but there is nothing whatsoever that will motivate them to use that power to anger their best customers.

It's only a dead end until things shift. Tesla's advertising doesn't have that restriction now - and as more of the 'outside world' acknowledges (even subconsciously) that we're well beyond peak oil those will shift more quickly as well.

The advertising industry will anger anyone they're paid to anger - and they do it every day. That's capitalism.

 

[mbender]

In any case, as far as why did EVs get politicized, it's frankly because just about every decision one can make is being politicized now. The current hip trend is to make everything about "us" vs. "them" and this is no different. If one group says "go!" the other instinctively yells "stop!" and if one says "yes!" the other will shout "no!" in the blink of an eye. As soon as someone expresses favor in any way, if the opposing party doesn't, well, oppose it, they're not doing their job... it's a sad state of affairs.

The funny, ironic &or sad thing about this 'theory' is that I don't exactly hear the left (political class) extolling the virtues of EVs. There's a significantly overblown perception that Obama is a big proponent, even though his support has been timid and muted, and some of the incentive and funding programs actually started under his predecessor.

But somehow, yes, electric vehicles got "labelled" as leftie, and the knee-jerk opposition started rolling. They are associated with alternative/clean energy (which is more legitimately "leftie") however, even though they need not be, and none of their positive attributes from the right's view of things requires that they be. If I didn't give a damn about the environment &or worked on a domestic oil rig, I'd still want to drive electric!

So I think the reasons are more complex &or 'nuanced' -- certainly more numerous -- than just saying it is reflexive opposition.

 

[LeftieBiker]

It's only a dead end until things shift.

The idea that Madison Ave will do the shifting is a dead end. You have to shift the car companies before that, and the public before that. You don't argue with the gun that it needs to be pointed away.

 

[mbender]

It's only a dead end until things shift.

The idea that Madison Ave will do the shifting is a dead end. You have to shift the car companies before that, and the public before that. You don't argue with the gun that it needs to be pointed away.

Hey! I'm the "authority" on shifting here ;-), and regardless: no one is going to be shifting any EVs!*

But seriously, I disagree with you about Madison Ave. If Musk offered $1 billion to the best "houses" to make commercials that decimated the 'legacy' ICE-makers and oil companies (or just oil implications), you can be damned sure that they'd come up with brilliant and convincing campaigns. Madison Avenue (firms) are not the gun in your analogy, they're the gun holders, and its their ads that are the guns. And while you may not be able to argue with the gun holders to point their guns in a different direction, you can "bribe" them into doing it.


Second, regarding the direction that the shift has to move in, I believe it needs to come from both the top, down and the bottom/public up, not just the latter. And the 'top' here is not the car companies, it's the policy-makers. Once the public/customers and policies (high CAFE standards, e.g.) are in line, then the automakers will be forced, if not glad, to oblige and abandon internal combustion engines.


* or even Shift_ ing(tm) a Leaf. ( :lol: )

 

[LeftieBiker]

But seriously, I disagree with you about Madison Ave. If Musk offered $1 billion to the best "houses" to make commercials that decimated the 'legacy' ICE-makers and oil companies (or just oil implications), you can be damned sure that they'd come up with brilliant and convincing campaigns. Madison Avenue (firms) are not the gun in your analogy, they're the gun holders, and its their ads that are the guns. And while you may not be able to argue with the gun holders to point their guns in a different direction, you can "bribe" them into doing it.

I disagree with all of that, pretty much. You can buy ads from media companies not already depending on the auto industry, but that would just prompt a flood of disparaging ads from the majority of the industry, with the net result being, at best, a mixed message. Madison Avenue doesn't actually decide to change society, either: they are told to push products by the makers of those products, and they create perceived need with that end in mind. They do not, however, have a political or social Master Plan. They are just powerful Tools (in both senses of the word) of the capitalist economy.

 

[mbender]

... but that would just prompt a flood of disparaging ads from the majority of the industry

Which industry? Auto or Advertising? And a good "general" EV ad could target petroleum and internal combustion, without "naming names". Then who fights back with counter ads? And what would they say?

... with the net result being, at best, a mixed message.

I say, let that messaging war begin! Electricity will win it, the more people discuss and debate the pros and cons of each alternative.

Madison Avenue doesn't actually decide to change society, either: they are told to push products by the makers of those products, and they create perceived need with that end in mind.

Where are you getting this? No one here has asserted this -- or even thought it, as far as I know. And they aren't told so much as paid to push products. I'd argue too that they often push ideas and feelings as much as products, per se. I think we know that the "ideas and feelings" associated with EVs will win the day if well presented.

They do not, however, have a political or social Master Plan.

Again, not sure where this was said or is coming from. "Straw man"?

They are just powerful Tools (in both senses of the word) of the capitalist economy.

Yes, and they'll take anyone's money. The problem that I see is that there is no EV-advocacy group with the kind of money needed to create and promulgate excellent advertising. Excepting Tesla of course, who doesn't need to advertise (yet).

Bottom-up (all the great word-of-mouth that we early adopters spread) is not enough. We need top-down -- in both the media and political "worlds" -- in order for EVs to really take hold and win in the 'marketplace'.

 

[redleafusa]

The electric utility industry has deep pockets and excess capacity in many areas. For example, next year when a large multi-national plastics company in our area turns on their new co-gen unit (a.k.a. combined heat and power), our regional IOU will lose 10% of electricity demand or 500K MWH per year. That is enough power to allow all 140K households in this service area to charge and run one Nissan Leaf 12K miles per year!!!!

In addition, even at $.143/kWh (incl. sales tax) and the highest in IN, our rates are still relatively cheap and this fosters waste. When the utility sends us a notice every quarter that we are using 60% less electricity than 100 comparably sized homes in our area, I know there is a structural problem in the system. In case you're wondering, we don't have solar electric yet and just practice smart energy conservation. The point is that there is plenty of room for greater efficiency and shifting electrons over to thousands of car batteries every night.

I'm amazed that the overpaid slackers at the power company haven't come up with a plan yet. Giving a rate discount for charging from 11PM-6AM would motivate many consumers to buy an electric car. Of course, this would take some advertising and maybe co-promotion with Nissan or BMW (only local dealers selling electric cars here). It would also require a dedicated meter, but that has advantages for the utility too.

Maybe they feel it will be easier to cry to the Public Utilities Commission for a rate increase. They usually get it in this crony state.

 

[mjblazin]

With the shift away from coal towards cheap natural gas, power generators increasingly use machines that can match actual demand at peak efficiency. They still have nuclear, hydro and large coal plants for the rock bottom baseline. Everything after that point might be nat gas driven that starts when needed. That night time discount might not be there in the future.

 

[mbender]

The electric utility industry has deep pockets

Really? (And not the sarcastic 'Really?' ) Do you have a source on this? But even if they do, and are substantial, I doubt they're as deep as Big Oil and Auto combined. There are trade groups though, like the EPRI and EDTA, and it seems like we (and lawmakers) should hear more from them. I think they are both non-profit though, so I doubt that their pockets are all that deep. Maybe they are working "behind the scenes" despite this, and we just haven't reaped the fruits of their labor and lobbying yet.

In addition, even at $.143/kWh (incl. sales tax) and the highest in IN, our rates are still relatively cheap and this fosters waste. [...] The point is that there is plenty of room for greater efficiency and shifting electrons over to thousands of car batteries every night.

I'm amazed that the overpaid slackers at the power company haven't come up with a plan yet. Giving a rate discount for charging from 11PM-6AM would motivate many consumers to buy an electric car.

Maybe they feel it will be easier to cry to the Public Utilities Commission for a rate increase. They usually get it in this crony state.

The key to getting utilities to encourage efficiency over "quantity" used and sold is decoupling (Wiki, EPA (pdf), other*) . Fewer than half of the country has it and, at least on this 2011 source, Indiana is not one of them. So they are probably quite happy to have their customers consume and/or waste all of the electricity they wish to. Residents in 'decoupled' states use electricity far more efficiently; here in CA for example, I believe we use half the per-capita national average.

* this opinion piece is very much against decoupling, arguing that it raises rates and moves choice and responsibility (for conserving energy) out of the hands of consumers and to "the state". So apparently, and not all that surprisingly, this issue is political/partisan as well. :-|

 

[LeftieBiker]

LeftieBiker wrote:
Madison Avenue doesn't actually decide to change society, either: they are told to push products by the makers of those products, and they create perceived need with that end in mind.

Where are you getting this? No one here has asserted this -- or even thought it, as far as I know. And they aren't told so much as paid to push products. I'd argue too that they often push ideas and feelings as much as products, per se. I think we know that the "ideas and feelings" associated with EVs will win the day if well presented.

I'm saying that the advertising industry is very powerful, but in a very limited way. There are lots of ideological groups out there that have ideas, the means to push the ideas, and a master plan they want to achieve by pushing those ideas. You don't fight that sort of clout by buying a billion dollars' worth of pro-EV ads. The advertising industry would thank you, of course, but the net result would be a few thousand more EV sales and *no change in the paradigm*. Unlike me, you seem to have endless energy to post here, so I guess I'll let you use repetition to "sell" your perspective, in the time-honored manner. I'm just trying to offer a more realistic counterpoint.

 

[AndyH]

I'm saying that the advertising industry is very powerful, but in a very limited way.

Clearly.

There are lots of ideological groups out there that have ideas, the means to push the ideas, and a master plan they want to achieve by pushing those ideas.

Yup.

You don't fight that sort of clout by buying a billion dollars' worth of pro-EV ads.

You do if the 'other side' is only spending $900 million - and you get extra points when using the latest crowd psychology data to push a button or three the others are not.

The advertising industry would thank you, of course, but the net result would be a few thousand more EV sales and *no change in the paradigm*.

I'd like to see data for this.

Unlike me, you seem to have endless energy to post here, so I guess I'll let you use repetition to "sell" your perspective, in the time-honored manner.

Whoa there - why the need to get all adhominey?

I'm just trying to offer a more realistic counterpoint.

"Realistic"? I'd like to see some data on that as well, if you don't mind.

http://journals.ama.org/doi/abs/10.1509/jppm.19.1.106.16946

The authors assess preferences for clean-fuel vehicles (CFVs) versus the conventional vehicle using a discrete choice experiment. The results show that though consumers value environmental impact, vehicle performance characteristics are critical to choice. The authors find that regulation is not sufficient to create a market for CFVs, and they identify three market segments to which CFVs should be distinctly positioned and targeted.

edit... I recommend that folks grab an unabridged copy of Napoleon Hill's classic "Think and Grow Rich" for a look at how the advertising industry was used to turn the entire population of the USA 180 degrees after the 1929 crash and depression. Yes, Hill and others - working for the government - created false stories for radio and print news to convince the population that things had already turned around - and they proved that the tail could wag the dog. http://www.amazon.com/Think-Grow-Rich-Original-Unedited/dp/193764135X (Hey - did you know that eating a larger portion of Quaker Oats is 'heart healthy'? It says so right on the carton! LOL

 

[redleafusa]

With the shift away from coal towards cheap natural gas, power generators increasingly use machines that can match actual demand at peak efficiency. They still have nuclear, hydro and large coal plants for the rock bottom baseline. Everything after that point might be nat gas driven that starts when needed. That night time discount might not be there in the future.

%

It's predominantly coal fired electricity here from power plants built in the late 60s to mid 80s with locally sourced coal. Many people associated with coal have "friends of coal" signs in their yards. Natural gas is used here, but with older single cycle equipment to handle peak loads. Wind sourcing is only 80 MW (8 MW counted because of variability). The coal plants were upgraded ($$$) with emissions controls, although this does nothing for CO2. These plants will likely run until end-of-life. The IOU's plans are for utility scale solar farms when new capacity is needed. To shut down the coal power plants to build CCNG facilities would probably result in our electric bills going up 30% and local industries, who buy 50% of the electricity, boycotting.

I wonder how long natural gas will stay cheap?

 

[redleafusa]

Do you have a source on this?...The key to getting utilities to encourage efficiency over "quantity" used and sold is decoupling... So they are probably quite happy to have their customers consume and/or waste all of the electricity they wish to. Residents in 'decoupled' states use electricity far more efficiently; here in CA for example, I believe we use half the per-capita national average.

I'm not sure where you're going with this. I'm just saying that this local utility company is very stable. They pay 3%-5% dividend yields every year, have increased dividends for 55 years, achieve AA bond ratings, and influence state government policy on many levels. In general, the regulated utility industry is very stable and can borrow money at low rates. They do have a lot of influence and generally get what they want in both red and blue states.

EEI has a policy paper (Transportation Electrification) on increasing electricity sales by promoting electric vehicles. It seems that the electric industry is all in favor replacing gas and diesel vehicles wherever practical to boost sales and promote domestic energy. From the other side of their mouth, EEI and many utilities are trying to eliminate solar net metering.

Natural gas is decoupled here, but not electricity. When electric rates across the river in KY are 40%-50% less expensive than in S. IN, customers are against the idea of guaranteeing revenue (decoupling) to an IOU that many perceive as wasteful. Decoupling does reduce the incentive to sell more, but it doesn't necessarily promote efficiency. Other programs like customer rebates on appliances, energy audits, etc. are used for that purpose, combined with revenue recovery for the IOU. The municipal utility model probably works better than IOU because there is no conflict of interest.

California isn't a good state to use for electricity comparison purposes due to the mild climate. Take out heating and cooling, and our home uses only 4,800 kWh per year. Add 35% more for the new Nissan Leaf.

Edit: bad math

 

[RonDawg]

California isn't a good state to use for electricity comparison purposes due to the mild climate. Take out heating and cooling, and our home uses only 4,800 kWh per year. Add 35% more for the new Nissan Leaf.

We may enjoy a mild winter compared to most of the US, but unless you live near the beach, or in the mountains, our summer temps make up for what we don't use in the wintertime. During hot spells it's not unusual for local utilities to broadcast "flex alerts" asking you to cut consumption, and if that doesn't work we experience power outages from when the transformers blow up.

 

[Nubo]

California isn't a good state to use for electricity comparison purposes due to the mild climate. Take out heating and cooling, and our home uses only 4,800 kWh per year. Add 35% more for the new Nissan Leaf.

We may enjoy a mild winter compared to most of the US, but unless you live near the beach, or in the mountains, our summer temps make up for what we don't use in the wintertime. During hot spells it's not unusual for local utilities to broadcast "flex alerts" asking you to cut consumption, and if that doesn't work we experience power outages from when the transformers blow up.

Agreed. We use gas for heating and hot water, and our energy bill is about 90% electric, 10% gas.

 

[RegGuheert]

California isn't a good state to use for electricity comparison purposes due to the mild climate. Take out heating and cooling, and our home uses only 4,800 kWh per year. Add 35% more for the new Nissan Leaf.

Agreed. And so does the EIA (from 2009):

Average site electricity consumption in California homes is among the lowest in the nation, as the mild climate in much of the state leads to less reliance on electricity for air conditioning and heating.

Note that over 40% of CA homes have NO cooling equipment versus the national average which is lower than 20%. Also note that about 14% of CA home have NO heating equipment versus the national average of about 3%.

Heating a home with electricity in a cold climate takes much more electricity than cooling the same home in a warm climate since the temperature differential is much higher (sorry image is so large):

And heating water with electricity takes a LOT of electricity: The label on a traditional resistive 50-gallon water heater reads around 4800 kWh/year while a 50-gallon heat-pump water heater reads about 1800 kWh/year (and provides room cooling, as well).

 

[mbender]

Do you have a source on this?...The key to getting utilities to encourage efficiency over "quantity" used and sold is decoupling... So they are probably quite happy to have their customers consume and/or waste all of the electricity they wish to. Residents in 'decoupled' states use electricity far more efficiently; here in CA for example, I believe we use half the per-capita national average.

I'm not sure where you're going with this. I'm just saying that this local utility company is very stable. They pay 3%-5% dividend yields every year, have increased dividends for 55 years, achieve AA bond ratings, and influence state government policy on many levels. In general, the regulated utility industry is very stable and can borrow money at low rates. They do have a lot of influence and generally get what they want in both red and blue states.

I said that in response to this:

In addition, even at $.143/kWh (incl. sales tax) and the highest in IN, our rates are still relatively cheap and this fosters waste. [...] The point is that there is plenty of room for greater efficiency and shifting electrons over to thousands of car batteries every night.

And I'm still curious how "deep their pockets are". It's one thing to pay a steady return over decades, but it's another to have a stash of cash available for advertising, promotions and related campaigns.

 

[redleafusa]

[/quote]And I'm still curious how "deep their pockets are". It's one thing to pay a steady return over decades, but it's another to have a stash of cash available for advertising, promotions and related campaigns.[/quote]

Not as deep as the car companies and car dealers who are probably the top advertisers in many markets. That said, our IOU does spend money advertising to a captive audience with billboard ads, TV and radio spots, etc. Often these plugs are about efficiency, safety, or general feel good (Go Team). So how about a utility commercial on how to reduce local ozone, particulate, and greenhouse gases by replacing that 25 MPG local car with an electric car? Even with coal generation, it's still better overall compared to the inefficient average vehicle on the road.

I really think this will all change when Chevy and Ford sell a 100-200 mile range electric vehicle. Then the "Friends of Coal" citizens will open their pocketbooks and buy electric and tell us how great electric cars are.

 

[redleafusa]

[/quote]Agreed. And so does the EIA (from 2009):

Average site electricity consumption in California homes is among the lowest in the nation, as the mild climate in much of the state leads to less reliance on electricity for air conditioning and heating.

Note that over 40% of CA homes have NO cooling equipment versus the national average which is lower than 20%. Also note that about 14% of CA home have NO heating equipment versus the national average of about 3%.

Heating a home with electricity in a cold climate takes much more electricity than cooling the same home in a warm climate since the temperature differential is much higher (sorry image is so large):

And heating water with electricity takes a LOT of electricity: The label on a traditional resistive 50-gallon water heater reads around 4800 kWh/year while a 50-gallon heat-pump water heater reads about 1800 kWh/year (and provides room cooling, as well).[/quote]

The graph says it all. Thanks for the link. Very informative.

We've had lower costs with a heat pump (HSPF 9, SEER 13) versus natural gas furnace and A/C unit over the last 14 years. A new 95% efficient gas furnace, combined with the CURRENT low NG price, is hard to beat. That said, the best new split air source heat pumps are HSPF 13, or 44% more energy efficient than our model! Also, if you add in the fixed monthly service charge just for having NG service, the cost comparison is pretty much a wash for most of the USA with average electricity prices. The heating fuel comparison calculator from EIA is a nice tool for such comparisons, although I think it downgrades heat pumps too much in colder climates. For example, we lock out the backup electric heat strips on our hp down to 5F. This winter the strips only came on once when it was -5F outside early one morning, and then for only a short time. Many people falsely assume that a hp only operates down to 32F. Maybe if you're in a huge drafty old house with huge demands, then this is correct. If you're in an average sized home with up-to-date insulation, windows, etc., then air source heat pumps work very well.

Lastly, you're info. on the electric water heater got my attention. Ours is 50 gallon, .95 energy factor, 5500 watt elements, and rated 4800 kWh/yr. I had to look up the assumptions behind the yellow label because I know we don't use close to that much electricity for heating water. It turns out they assume 64 gal./day of hot water. We use app. half of that amount for our 3 member household. There's nothing special to accomplish this, just Bosch dishwasher and washing machine that are miserly and the water heater is located in the basement where it's 70F year round. Here is the water heater link:

http://energy.gov/eere/femp/energy-cost-calculator-electric-and-gas-water-heaters-0#output" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sorry to go off topic, but transitioning to electric cars in society will require energy efficiency to make it happen. I know it's doable.