Connect with us

Published

on

Much has been made of the supposed danger to pedestrians from quiet electric cars, to the point where the government now requires noisemakers on each EV model. But if we really want to save pedestrians, and everyone else, we need to target the actual culprits: big, pedestrian-killing SUVs and trucks, and the associated pollution they create.

The noisemaker rule has finally gone into effect, after being tweaked and pushed back over the course of several years. This has resulted in noisier EVs, each with its own noise (some worse than others), in the name of pedestrian safety.

NHTSA’s rule was based on a DOT analysis that showed hybrid vehicles to be 17% more likely to be involved in a pedestrian crash, when accounting for situational factors and vehicle age, though this analysis only included hybrid vehicles up through the 2011 model year. The law mandating the DOT to study and propose a rule for this dates back to 2010, when only a handful of electric cars were on the road in the US.

When implementing the noisemaker rule, NHTSA estimated these noisemakers will save 32 lives over the lifecycle of a single model year’s fleet. The rule requires noisemakers for EVs and hybrids when operating under 19 mph, the safest speeds for pedestrians. It does not require noisemakers or minimum decibel levels for gas-powered vehicles, even if those vehicles are equipped with engine stop/start or other technologies, which make the engine quieter or silent in certain situations, e.g., when slowing down and approaching an intersection, a place pedestrians are likely to be.

And as of February of this year, NHTSA has even opened an investigation into whether every electric vehicle since 1997 should be retrofitted, at some cost and difficulty, in order to comply retroactively with the noisemaker rule, in a way that virtually no other vehicle regulation has ever been implemented. The petition itself acknowledges there is no data yet showing relative danger from EVs that are not equipped with noisemakers.

What’s really deadly to pedestrians? SUVs

But there’s another common vehicle type that is 45% more likely to kill pedestrians: “light trucks,” a classification that includes SUVs and pickup trucks. Though “light” might be an odd word to apply, given that today’s SUVs are as large as literal tanks.

Light trucks are more deadly to pedestrians because they are larger and have higher hoods, resulting in decreased pedestrian visibility for drivers (with pedestrians obscured behind hoods, or behind other vehicles that are taller than the pedestrians or cyclists on the other side of them) and more deadly pedestrian impacts.

Cars are required to have bumpers designed for pedestrian safety, but light trucks have a different set of requirements. This leads to light trucks impacting pedestrians higher on the body, which causes more injury to the torso and head than the legs, resulting in deadlier collisions when a light truck is involved.

So not only are they more likely to hit pedestrians, but more deadly when they do.

And in fact, pedestrian death rates have skyrocketed in the US recently, up around 50% in the last decade, reaching the highest point in 40 years. Not coincidentally, SUV sales rates have increased in the same time frame. More deadly vehicles on the road have resulted in more pedestrian death, with the growth in SUVs responsible for killing at least a thousand pedestrians as of 2019 – which is a lot more than 32. Pedestrian deaths continued to rise sharply after 2019, so that number is surely significantly higher now.

The rise of SUVs is not solely a matter of consumer preference. Automakers use light truck exemptions to get out of emissions and safety rules and make more money, and actively push consumers toward these vehicles (even though barely anyone uses them for their intended purpose). How can Americans buy wagons, or city cars, or hatchbacks, when everything on the dealer lot is an SUV?

Our own Micah Toll showing us the benefits of small cars.

But running over people isn’t the only way that SUVs are dangerous; the pollution they make is orders of magnitude worse.

Noise itself is deadly

The DOT’s analysis of EV pedestrian safety explicitly did not consider environmental noise as a confounding factor to its research.

In a world choked with noise pollution from combustion engine vehicles, it stands to reason that quieter vehicles would be harder to hear. But if the world were not choked with noise pollution, those quieter vehicles would no longer be too quiet, they would be the norm. In a quieter world, EVs aren’t “harder to hear” once the sounds they make are no longer masked by the pathetic belching of combustion engines. Lower noise levels is a benefit of EVs, not a downside.

Noise itself is incredibly deadly to pedestrians – or rather, to everyone. Noise, mostly from cars but also from other combustion engines (airplanes, small off-road engines, etc.), greatly increases the rate of heart attacks in noisy areas, negatively affects the health of hundreds of millions of Americans, and is responsible for 12,000 premature deaths per year across Europe. Some research shows noise pollution to be just about as deadly as vehicle crashes overall.

The government even knows this to be the case, and has for some time, as it established the Office of Noise Abatement and Control through Congressional acts in the 1970s. This office was intended to study and regulate environmental noise in the US, but was – in a phrase that should be common to people who study social ills – defunded by Reagan in the ’80s.

So since noise is deadly, and since noise itself contributes to the problem the NHTSA wants to solve (by making it harder to hear quieter cars), then why don’t we work on making less noise instead of more?

And then, there’s air pollution

And finally, air pollution is deadlier than all of the above. And air pollution overwhelmingly comes from combustion engines.

Outdoor air pollution kills over 4 million people globally per year (including 100-200K in the US) and shortens global lifespans by two years. The health and environmental costs of fossil fuels add up to $5.3 trillion globally per year.

Much of this pollution and fossil fuel use comes from gasoline-powered vehicles, with larger vehicles like SUVs consuming more fuel and emitting more pollution than smaller vehicles (and tremendously more than zero-emission EVs). Vehicle pollution results in 4 million new cases of childhood asthma per year, sentencing these children to a lifetime of health issues.

Which brings up the point that this pollution is often not killing the people who emit it. Not only are children harmed for a lifetime by this despite not having contributed to this pollution, but environmental damage is disproportionately felt by the poor and is disproportionately emitted by the affluent.

This disparity was recently pointed out by the LA Times, in an article which Tesla CEO Elon Musk criticized despite his company being one of the solutions to this problem (perhaps someone could remind him that he’s still CEO of Tesla?). We already have studies showing that more EVs means cleaner air (with each EV bringing ~$10K in societal health benefits), and we know that more gas cars means dirtier air – and more deaths.

So if you want to reduce deaths, I’ve got a proposal

We know that:

  • Big cars kill more pedestrians by running them over.
  • Noisy cars kill more people by increasing stress, and also cover up the noises made by cars that operate at a more appropriate volume.
  • Big, noisy combustion engines kill a whole lot of people by choking them to death with pollution.

Which means these noisemakers aren’t the most effective solution to the problem they are meant to solve. More effective solutions involve doing something about noise, and about air pollution, and about big pedestrian-murdering vehicles.

This also means that EVs aren’t the only answer. While a Hummer EV, the least-efficient EV, uses about as much energy as a Toyota Prius, one of the most-efficient gas-powered vehicles, the Hummer EV also takes up more space and causes more pedestrian danger. The trend toward SUVs threatens to eliminate emissions reductions from electrification, and while electric SUVs are still vastly efficient than any gas car, they are less efficient than smaller electric cars.

If we truly want to make the world safer for pedestrians, there are a lot of things that we can do outside of noisemakers. A discordant symphony of clown-car sound effects at every intersection isn’t going to be the big change that makes the world more walkable or cyclable.

To do that, we should put cars (or transit) on the road that don’t hog as much space, that don’t obscure pedestrians and cyclists from the view of other drivers, that don’t make the world too loud to think straight, that don’t choke everyone with stinky exhaust. These steps will give people more confidence to use their legs to make use of these more efficient, healthier, cheaper transportation methods – once these myriad benefits are no longer overshadowed by the problem of huge land yachts increasingly trying to murder them.

So here’s a modest proposal for society: If every EV needs a noisemaker for the safety gains mentioned above, then we should also take every “light truck” off the road for even more safety. If we’re thinking about making the EV rule retroactive to 1997, then we can make the much more effective SUV rule retroactive to 1997 as well. Do the latter, and you can have the former.

And if you won’t, then it’s not really about safety, is it?

Featured photo by Charles Edward Miller

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

Continue Reading

Environment

Rivian (RIVN) Q1 results – revenue beat, earnings miss, Q4 profit reaffirmed

Published

on

By

Rivian (RIVN) Q1 results – revenue beat, earnings miss, Q4 profit reaffirmed

Rivian has released its Q1 2024 results, slightly beating analyst estimates on revenue, which grew sharply year-over-year, but with wider losses than expected and only slight gross margin improvement as it still hopes to turn some quarterly profit by the end of the year.

Electric truck maker Rivian announced its results after the bell today, capping off a quarter that has seen difficulty for some EV makers.

Rivian previously announced that deliveries remained flat between Q4 and Q1 at 13,588 units, but were up 71% since the same quarter last year. Rivian says it achieved 5.1% market share in US EVs in Q1, quite a feat for a company that sells only upmarket vehicles, with the R1S being the best-selling EV over $70k

Q1 tends to be a down quarter for vehicle deliveries, so year-over-year numbers are often used – though with EV makers experiencing rapid growth, quarterly numbers can still be useful.

Analysts estimated that Rivian would bring in $1.175 billion in revenue this quarter, with a loss of $1.15 per share.

Rivian’s actual results, announced today, show that it beat the analysts with $1.204 billion in revenue, but had wider losses than expected at -$1.48 per share. Revenue improved by 82% year-over-year. Rivian ended the quarter with $7,858 billion in cash, down from $9,368 billion at the end of Q4 2023.

Gross margin on vehicles improved slightly, with a loss of $38,784 per vehicle as opposed to $43,372 per vehicle in the previous quarter. The gross margin improvement shows progress, but gross margins are still worse than they were in Q2 and Q3 of last year, at -$32k and -$30k respectively.

However, Rivian has just completed a plant shutdown, which started on April 5, and thus isn’t captured in this quarter’s results. The plant reopened on May 1.

This shutdown was focused on retooling to improve margins, and Rivian says it could increase efficiency by 30%. Rivian sees “significant progress” on cost optimization already, and says that it expects slight positive gross profit in Q4 of this year. We’ll expect to hear more about how the shutdown went on the company’s earnings call at 2PM PDT/5PM EDT today.

It’s also the first earnings call since Rivian’s R2/R3 unveiling event. These are Rivian’s two upcoming vehicles, with which it plans to move downmarket and into higher volume spaces. The R2 will start around $45k in the first half of 2026, while the R3 timeline and cost have not yet been announced.

Along with that event, Rivian announced that it would move production forward for the R2, by building it at its existing plant in Normal, IL, rather than a planned future plant in Georgia. This will bring Normal’s production numbers up to 215k units of total capacity per year across all products.

The main reason for this is to reduce capex in the short-term by $2.25 billion, saving the company cash in a time where fundraising is more difficult than it has been in the past. Rivian also recently cut 1% of jobs in service of these cost savings.

As part of today’s release, Rivian also reduced capex guidance for 2024 to $1.2 billion, down from $1.75 billion. It expects to save money in 2025 and 2026 from the decision to move R2 production to Normal, as well.

Otherwise, Rivian reaffirmed its full year 2024 guidance of 57,000 units production and a $2.7 billion loss, though it expects slight gross profit in Q4.

Rivian (RIVN) closed down 0.77% today, after opening high in response to rumors about a partnership with Apple, but giving back the gains throughout the day. RIVN is currently down 2-3% in aftermarket trading as we await the earnings call, where we expect a question (and likely non-answer) about the Apple rumors.

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

Continue Reading

Environment

BYD’s home city in China now has more supercharging plugs than gas pumps

Published

on

By

BYD's home city in China now has more supercharging plugs than gas pumps

Shenzhen, the home of Chinese EV giant BYD, says it’s become the first in China to have more supercharging plugs than gas pumps.

As Electrek reported in April, BYD received direct government subsidies of “at least” $3.7 billion to grow its EV business and undercut the competition with aggressively low pricing. So all those cheap EVs need to be fast-charged, and what better place to expand than BYD’s home city?

In June 2023, Shenzhen unveiled its first fully liquid-cooled supercharging prototype station as part of its “City of Supercharging” plan, in which it set a goal to build as many supercharging stations as gas stations by 2025. And these “superchargers” aren’t just DC fast chargers – they can charge EVs to 80% in just 10 minutes.

Shenzhen had 362 supercharging stations as of April 30, according to the latest data released by the city, but it didn’t say how many gas pumps there are. They’ve been conveniently sited in commercial complexes, bus stops, and industrial parks.

According to data from the Southern Power Grid Shenzhen Power Supply Bureau, Shenzhen’s EV charging volume reached 670 million kilowatt-hours in Q1 2024, an 11% increase year-over-year. So, the city has to plan carefully so as not to overburden the grid as both EVs and superchargers rapidly come online.

The city of 12.5 million people has been an electrification leader for some time; in 2017, it completely electrified its bus fleet with more than 16,000 electric buses, and its taxis became electrified in 2019.

China leads the world in renewables and EV growth, but it’s also the No 1 emitter of harmful greenhouse gases.

Read more: In 2023, investment in clean energy manufacturing shot up 70% from 2022


To limit power outages and make your home more resilient, consider going solar with a battery storage system. In order to find a trusted, reliable solar installer near you that offers competitive pricing, check out EnergySage, a free service that makes it easy for you to go solar. They have hundreds of pre-vetted solar installers competing for your business, ensuring you get high quality solutions and save 20-30% compared to going it alone. Plus, it’s free to use and you won’t get sales calls until you select an installer and you share your phone number with them.

Your personalized solar quotes are easy to compare online, and you’ll get access to unbiased energy advisers who will help you every step of the way. Get started here. – ad*

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

Continue Reading

Environment

Despite Elon Musk’s foolishness, auto industry shouldn’t give up on NACS

Published

on

By

Despite Elon Musk's foolishness, auto industry shouldn't give up on NACS

Tesla CEO Elon Musk is causing chaos in the EV industry by firing Tesla’s entire charging team, which may lead some automakers to reconsider their plans to adopt the NACS plug. But NACS is just a better standard, and the industry should move forward on it, even if Tesla waffles with its commitment.

Last week, Tesla abruptly fired its entire Supercharging team, leading to an immediate pullback in Supercharger installation plans. The explanation we’ve heard for these firings is that CEO Elon Musk was unhappy with EV Charging lead Rebecca Tinucci for not firing enough people, and retaliated by suddenly firing her and her entire team.

The firing was so ill-considered that the company has even had to send out an email blast to suppliers and contractors, seemingly confused about which companies it’s even working with on site development.

The abrupt firing has caused a lot of chaos and reconsideration in the EV industry, with some automakers reportedly having meetings about whether to proceed with the planned NACS transition or pull back on their plans.

Currently, EVs from Ford and Rivian can charge on Tesla’s Supercharger network through adapters, but other automakers can’t yet. Tesla planned to roll out support to more brands this spring (GM, Volvo, Polestar), with more coming later. Virtually every brand has announced they will adopt NACS in the next couple years.

But this Supercharger rollout to other automakers will likely be slowed down, as the Supercharger team was the group responsible for onboarding other automakers, and for advancing the whole idea of NACS in the first place.

As a result there have been questions swirling about whether this could spell doom for NACS, potentially being an end to the standard as everyone switches back to CCS.

Is NACS going to die? It shouldn’t, here’s why

First, I don’t think NACS is going to die. Tesla will still use it, and is still the biggest EV brand in North America. While firing the whole team is a petty and incomprehensible move, I expect that the company will eventually come to its senses and hire some people back into that department, and continue to develop and install its charging system, though this will still be a huge setback.

The thing is – NACS is overall just a better standard than CCS. That’s why, when SAE certified the standard, we wrote that “it’ll fix every charging problem at once” (maybe not quite every problem, but close). The cable and connector are easier to use, its 277V support is better for commercial installations, its provision for carry-along cables is better for public infrastructure (especially street parking) and more interoperable with international receptacles.

Also, NACS is now out of Tesla’s hands. The SAE certification for NACS, which it calls J3400, is already finished. So it’s a real standard, and it’s a standard that Tesla no longer has control over. Other companies can make NACS ports and NACS chargers and all the technical information needed is out there and open for use. It’s only Supercharger network compatibility that is in Tesla’s hands (and if they want NEVI funds, they’re going to have to allow other brands to charge at their chargers).

And now that the whole industry already decided to convert to NACS (which is a tough thing to get everyone to agree on), it also puts to bed the format war that we might have had between Superchargers and CCS.

It would be one thing to convert from one standard to another and leave everyone out in the cold, but the industry has already started planning this conversion, and adapters are available. There will be a transition period where CCS and NACS chargers both remain available, so most people shouldn’t have trouble finding a charge.

But it does make sense to collapse down to one standard, and it makes sense to collapse down to the better one.

And so, rumors that manufacturers are considering reversing their NACS transition plans will hopefully not come true. Manufacturers should continue forward in transitioning and getting NACS ports on their vehicles as soon as possible, third parties should focus primarily on installing NACS chargers to pick up the slack left by Tesla’s pullback (with some CCS during the transitionary period), and Tesla should rehire a division to ensure that the transition goes smoothly (you already had one and firing them was stupid).

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

Continue Reading

Trending