Connect with us

Published

on

For nearly a decade, utility companies have been targeted by companies and individuals selling a particular kind of snake oil. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think a lot of these people are acting maliciously (I’ll get to that in a minute). In fact, I think a lot of these people have the best of intentions at heart — there’s just a problem in the way they look at the world, and that’s this: they’re wrong about what the utility companies’ role in the transition to EVs needs to be, and there is a whole lot of incentive for them to stay wrong.

How We Got Here

Before we talk about how we got here, we need to talk about what “here” is. Basically, we exist in a world that is still very much influenced by pressures that started way back in 2008 and 2009 when the housing market collapsed, fuel prices soared, and carmakers were desperate to sell new cars and trucks to just about anyone who could still buy them. The flex-fuel Dodge Ram pickups (Ram was still part of Dodge back then) had “Runs on Corn!” written in broad strokes across the windshield while they baked in the Napleton Northlake Dodge parking lot.

It was a wild time, for sure, but it was the first real shake to the ever-growing US car market that many of us had lived through, and it was very much the dawn of the EV startup. There was Tesla, there was Fisker, there was Aptera, heck, there was even Paul Elio and his goofy tadpole thing. Everyone was pushing for 40 MPG or 50 MPG cars, hybrids were in the limelight, and nobody back then really knew if it would be biofuels or hydrogen or battery-electric vehicles (BEVs) that would win the day.

Now, as I type this, it’s obvious that BEVs won. It wasn’t so much that BEVs won, though. It was Tesla that won, and every other carmaker has been forced to participate in the electric future that Tesla created. And, to their credit, just about every one of them — with a few notable holdouts, like Toyota and Mazda — have jumped into the BEV race with both feet, committing to a majority electric future by 2030, if not a fully electric one … and the environmentalists are pushing this as a huge win.

The EV Future Is Not An Environmentalist Victory

No to Climate Death! Used under CC License.

Read that heading again, carefully. This isn’t an article that’s claiming EVs are worse for the environment than internal combustion (those articles are complete and utter bullshit, anyway). What this is is an article that hopes to explain that Tesla — and, by extension, all EVs — didn’t win because they are better for the environment. The EVs won because they are better cars.

That’s it. That’s the reason. Electric cars are better cars. Electric cars are succeeding as a product, in other words, not as an ideology.

It’s not the planet. It’s a sad fact, but almost no one cares about the planet. Even in a liberal Utopia like Portland, Oregon, headlines about record heat waves hover over pictures of JetSkis leaping over the waves and scantily-clad women on motor yachts enjoying mojitos. Hardly the picture of doom and gloom that you’d expect from a burning planet facing record heat waves, record droughts, and a global pandemic that’s still churning out thousands of newly-stuffed body bags every day, you know?

You know.

The Consultants Get Paid

Screencap from Breaking Bad.

The success of Tesla has given the internal-combustion stakeholders a bloody nose, and the environmentalists and activists — even the most well-meaning among them — have done everything they can to draw attention to that fact. As such, the sharkiest sharks have had no choice but to smell the blood in the water, and find a way to cash in. Who are they? Consultants.

While the environmental activists are working hard to change the way that people think about cars with talk about “average commutes” and “savings calculators” and “cradle to grave emissions” and “educating the public about the benefits of EVs” to anyone who will listen, the consultants have found someone who is not just willing to listen, but who is willing to reach into some very, very deep pockets when they’re done listening. That someone is the utility companies.

Utility companies, almost without exception, have millions of captive customers who must pay them every month or risk their health, their jobs, or more. That also means they have millions of dollars to play with. Combine that huge budget with pressure from policy makers and those very same, well-meaning environmentalists, and you end up with a large company that has a large PR incentive to spend large amounts of money on large projects — projects like getting people to buy more EVs! (Maybe even large ones!)

The first problem is that even the most well-meaning and sincere among the policy makers and activists typically have no idea how the car business works. Like, none. Not even a little bit. They don’t know about floorplans or co-ops or CSI scores or allocations — and they certainly, as a group, have no idea how those things can conspire against a dealer or salesperson who might very much want to sell you an electric car, but who literally cannot, through no fault of their own.

The second problem is that very few people at the utility companies understand how the car business works, either, but they at least know enough to know that they don’t know enough, and that’s where the consultants swoop in and convince the utilities that it’s their job — no, their mission — to convince people to buy electric cars.

To aid in that mission, the consultants have created a cottage industry of certificate programs, expensive training seminars, and online buyers’ guides that are terrible at convincing people to choose a perfectly reasonable EV instead of a loud and emotional Hemi-powered monster, terrible at their stated mission of helping dealers to sell cars, and terrible at showing people how an electric car can fit into the lives, today, but that are very good at convincing utility companies to transfer money from their bank accounts to the consultant’s.

They got it wrong, and that was the elephant in the room right now that everyone was afraid to talk about at that “big” EV web conference took part in last month. The environmentalists and activists who wanted the utility companies and policy-makers to engage in conversations with John Q. Public about “wheel to well emissions” and change the way people make decisions about cars got it 100% wrong. EVs aren’t succeeding because people are changing the way they think, they’re succeeding because they’re meeting new car buyers where they’re at today with body styles, performance figures, and capabilities that are more in line with what mainstream Americans are already buying, which also includes easily knowing how and where to fill up. The EV evangelists got it wrong, and the consultants took advantage of their political clout in order to siphon money out of the utilities. Full stop.

TL;DR: environmentalists and activists lobbied utility companies to become more visibly “green,” and the consultants took advantage of that by convincing the utility companies that it’s their job to sell cars, when it’s actually their job to sell electricity.

Selling Electric Fuel

Image courtesy Western Electric Co., circa 1915.

Utility companies sell electricity, plain and simple. But, they’ve had such a captive market and such a strong natural monopoly on their primary product that almost no one involved in a utility company’s day-to-day even thinks about selling electricity.

Want to see someone flounder? Ask someone at a utility company why you should buy electricity from them.

It seems like an asinine question, doesn’t it? A given, even, that you must buy electricity — but that wasn’t always the case. At the turn of the last century, though, it was a legitimate question. My own home outside of Chicago still has gas fixtures in it, for gas lights. There are pictures of lamplighters on the streets right outside, and the reason those gas lamps aren’t lit tonight is that, once upon a time, someone sold electricity to the people of this neighborhood.

Electricity is a superior product, and it succeeded because it was cleaner than gas and oil, sure, but I’d weigh that at about 10% of the reason why. The reasons that weighed heavier were many. The electric lights burned brighter, the smell of burning fuel oil was gone, the hassle of refilling oil lamps was eliminated, there was no smoke to stain the walls or ceilings, either.

That was it. That was the reason: electric fuel was better fuel. It succeeded as a product and not an ideology.

Image courtesy Chicago Edison Co.

Fast forward a hundred-odd years, and electric fuel is still better fuel. The electricity pushes cars to highway speeds faster than gasoline can, that gasoline smell that sticks to your hands is gone, the hassle of pumping gas into the car every few days is eliminated by at-home charging, and there are no harmful tailpipe emissions, either.

What’s more, electricity is cheap, it’s familiar, and it is absolutely everywhere. Sure, there may not be a 20 minutes-to-200 miles fast charger on every street corner (yet), but there very much is a power outlet that will, given time, charge your electric car, and every new electric car sold is a new car that needs electric fuel.

That’s it. That’s the difference. An electric car is just a regular car that you fill up with different stuff, and the utility companies, environmentalists — and every other stakeholder, come to think of it — would be better served by understanding that they’ll never “advance” or “accelerate” EV adoption by getting people to change the way they think about cars, but they may have a chance by getting people to change the way they think about the fuel that they’re putting in their cars.

Not dirty. Clean!
Not hard to find. Everywhere!
Not an expensive luxury. Affordable!
Not for hippies and tree-huggers. For everyone!
Not a sacrifice for a better tomorrow. Better for me, now!

Once the utility companies understand their role, they can start affecting real change, and let the dealers do what they know how to do best: sell cars that people want to buy to the people that want to buy them. And if that means that one or two of these opportunistic “consultants” has to find a different 9-5? So much the better.

Original content from CleanTechnica.


Appreciate CleanTechnica’s originality? Consider becoming a CleanTechnica Member, Supporter, Technician, or Ambassador — or a patron on Patreon.


 



 


Have a tip for CleanTechnica, want to advertise, or want to suggest a guest for our CleanTech Talk podcast? Contact us here.

Continue Reading

Environment

Tesla’s retro-futuristic diner and Supercharger is here and it looks sick

Published

on

By

Tesla's retro-futuristic diner and Supercharger is here and it looks sick

Tesla’s retro-futuristic diner with Superchargers and giant movie screens is ready to open, and I have to admit, it looks pretty sick.

This project has been in the works for a long time.

In 2018, Elon Musk said that Tesla planned to open an “old school drive-in, roller skates & rock restaurant at one of the new Tesla Supercharger locations in Los Angeles.” It was yet another “Is he joking?” kind of Elon Musk idea, but he wasn’t kidding.

A few months later, Tesla applied for building permits for “a restaurant and Supercharger station” at a location in Santa Monica. However, the project stalled for a long time, apparently due to local regulations.

Advertisement – scroll for more content

Nevertheless, Tesla still moved forward with a Supercharger at the location, but it had to move the diner project to Hollywood. In 2022, Tesla filed the construction plans with the city, giving us the first look at what the automaker intends to build.

In 2023, the automaker broke ground on the site of the diner.

7 years after being originally announced, the project appears now ready to open:

Musk said that he ate at the diner last night and claimed that it is “one of the coolest spots in LA.” He didn’t say when it will open, but Tesla vehicles have been spotted at Supercharger and people appear to be testing the dinning experience inside.

A Tesla Optimus Robot can be seen inside the diner on a test rack. It looks like Tesla might use one for some tasks inside the diner.

Earlier this year, Tesla integrated the diner into its mobile app – hinting at some interaction through the app – possibly ordering from it.

Electrek’s Take

I think it looks pretty cool. I am a fan of the design and concept.

However, considering the state of the Tesla community, I don’t think I’d like the vibes. That said, it looks like Tesla isn’t prominently pushing its branding on the diner.

You can come and charge there, but it looks like Tesla is also aiming to get a wider clientele just for dining.

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Environment

Westinghouse plans to build 10 large nuclear reactors in U.S., interim CEO tells Trump

Published

on

By

Westinghouse plans to build 10 large nuclear reactors in U.S., interim CEO tells Trump

Plant Vogtle Nuclear Power Plant in Waynesboro, GA, August 15, 2024.

Van Applegate | CNBC

Westinghouse plans to build 10 large nuclear reactors in the U.S. with construction to begin by 2030, interim CEO Dan Sumner told President Donald Trump at a roundtable in Pittsburgh on Tuesday.

Westinghouse’s big AP1000 reactor generates enough electricity to power more than 750,000 homes, according to the company. Building 10 of these reactors would drive $75 billion of economic value across the U.S. and $6 billion in Pennsylvania, Sumner said.

The Westinghouse executive laid out the plan to Trump during a conference on energy and artificial intelligence at Carnegie Mellon University. Technology, energy and financial executives announced more than $90 billion of investment in data centers and power infrastructure at the conference, according to the office of Sen. Dave McCormick, who organized the event.

Trump issued four executive orders in May that aim to quadruple nuclear power in the U.S. by 2050. The president called for the U.S. to have 10 nuclear plants under construction by 2050. He ordered a “wholesale revision” of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s rules and guidelines.

The U.S. has built only two new nuclear reactors over the past 30 years, both of which were Westinghouse AP1000s at Plant Vogtle in Waynesboro, Georgia. The project notoriously came in $18 billion over budget and seven years behind schedule, contributing to the bankruptcy of Westinghouse.

The industry stalwart emerged from bankruptcy in 2018 and us now owned by Canadian uranium miner Cameco and Brookfield Asset Management.

Westinghouse announced a partnership with Google on Tuesday to use AI tools to make the construction of AP1000s an “efficient, repeatable process,” according to the company.

Catch up on the latest energy news from CNBC Pro:

Continue Reading

Environment

Hyundai’s electric minivan sheds its camo: Check out the new Staria EV

Published

on

By

Hyundai's electric minivan sheds its camo: Check out the new Staria EV

Hyundai’s electric minivan is finally out in the open. The Staria EV was caught without camo near Hyundai’s R&D center in Korea, giving us a closer look at the electric minivan undisguised.

Hyundai’s electric minivan drops camo ahead of debut

The Staria arrived in 2021 as the successor to the Starex, Hyundai’s multi-purpose vehicle (MPV). Although the Staria has received several updates throughout the years, 2026 will be its biggest by far.

Hyundai will launch the Staria EV, its first electric minivan. Like the current model, the 2026 Staria will be available in several different configurations, including cargo, passenger, and even a camper version.

We’ve seen the Staria EV out in public a few times already. Last month, we got a glimpse of it while driving on public roads in Korea.

Advertisement – scroll for more content

Despite the camouflage, new EV-like design elements were visible, including updated LED headlights and a full-length light bar. Although it’s still unclear, the electric version appears to be roughly the same size as the current Staria from the side, but slightly wider from the front.

New images posted on the South Korean forum Clien reveal a test car, expected to be Hyundai’s Staria electric minivan, without camo.

Like most Hyundai test cars, the prototype has a black front and a grey body. It still features a similar look to other prototypes we’ve seen, but you can clearly see the new facelift.

Earlier this year, a Staria EV was spotted in a parking lot in Korea, featuring a similar look. The electric version is nearly identical to the Staria Lounge, but with an added charge port and closed-off grille.

The Hyundai Staria EV is expected to make its global debut later this year. Technical details have yet to be revealed, but it’s expected to feature either a 76 kWh or 84 kWh battery, providing a range of around 350 km (217 miles) to 400 km (249 miles).

Hyundai's-first-electric-minivan
Hyundai Staria Lounge (Source: Hyundai)

Hyundai’s electric SUV arrives after Kia introduced its first electric van, the PV5, which launched in Europe and Korea earlier this year.

In Europe, the Kia Passenger PV5 model is available with two battery pack options: 51.5 kWh and 71.2 kWh, providing WLTP ranges of 179 miles and 249 miles, respectively. The Cargo version has a WLTP range of 181 miles or 247 miles.

Source: TheKoreanCarBlog, Clien

FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.

Continue Reading

Trending