Once you unscrew the filler cap, it takes less than five minutes to load enough fuel for more than 360 miles in this Honda Civic.
For a year and a half now it has been legal to pump your own gas at Oregon stations, and getting fuel now often takes almost no time at all. That makes the contrast even bigger between the convenience of today and what state regulators have in store for motorists a mere decade from now.
You may remember that in order to slow global warming, Oregon, California and several other states intend to outlaw the sale of new gas-powered cars in 10 years. The states want everyone to drive electric cars.
Last week, the Oregon Department of Transportation announced that it had selected three companies to receive federal grants to repair or upgrade electric vehicle charging stations. (Albany is also working on grants for more public charging stations.)
ODOT said the three companies will get $3.2 million to fix 20 public “DC fast-charging” stations. The stations, each with four ports funded by the grants, are in Lincoln City, Arlington, Salem, Portland and Lake Oswego.
The announcement included a link to a page explaining “Level 3 DC fast-charging stations.” At such a station, it said, getting a full charge takes up to an hour. And one hour adds “up to 240 miles” of driving.
So if you’re on a trip and your electric vehicle’s battery is running low, you’re going to have to find something to do while your car stays plugged in for an hour or so. That’s assuming you can get to a fast-charging station that works.
I could be wrong, but motorists are not going to want to wait an hour at a station so they can continue their trip or try to get home again.
Instead, they’ll remember the convenience of fueling their old car with a combustion engine. If they are fortunate enough to have a little car like a Honda Civic, they can fill the tank in five minutes or less and have enough fuel to drive another 360 miles or so.
So, if you expect to live beyond 2035 and value your independence and mobility, and never want to be stuck at a “fast-charging” station, you’ll want to buy a new gas-powered car well before that fateful year rolls around. (hh)
Question: What has more than four arms and four legs and no brain?
Answer: Your state legislature.
Also has a brain.
“I could be wrong, but motorists are not going to want to wait an hour at a station so they can continue their trip or try to get home again.”
Yes, you are wrong. These people will find a local restaurant to have lunch, take a walk through our city, or spend more time and money in our local economy in that hour.
You can speak for yourself but not everyone. I want to be able to get where I am going when on a road trip. I dont want to be forced to take an hour or more when I dont want to. I can appreciate local travel for electric vehicles but traveling up in mountains and such or taking a long road trip, no thanks. I will make up my own mind when I want to stop for a bite to eat or such :)
A critical point that’s missed here: you can charge an electric vehicle at home overnight to get you as far as you are likely to go in one day. So over the course of a week you end up saving yourself the 5-10 minutes of fueling time, since it happens while you’re sleeping.
The challenges still present are for apartment complexes and, as you’ve mentioned before, anyone without a driveway (which would force an extension cord to drape over a sidewalk).
Notably, owning a internal combustion engine vehicle won’t be prohibited. And people don’t tend to buy new vehicles super often. And gas powered cars will still be available to purchase used and from out of state. I don’t see this transition happening very quickly even in the face of the looming ban.
I’ve got to tell you, though, as someone who owns an electric vehicle, it’s amazing to not have to care about how expensive gas is.
“I’ve got to tell you, though, as someone who owns an electric vehicle, it’s amazing to not have to care about how expensive gas is.”
Which means everybody that pays their electric bill is supposed to support you. That includes people like me that can’t afford a car. What an entitled piece of crap!
Your logic doesn’t track. Everyone pays for the electricity they use, so no one is paying for his fuel except him.
Now, I am paying tax on my gasoline, which is a portion of how Oregon funds roads, and currently EVs do not. But I understand they are working on making up for that with additional revenue from registration fees. No one rides for free for long…
But no, you aren’t paying for his fuel.
Not only do you pay for the electricity, EV’s have a higher registration fee in Oregon to make up for the gas tax. The government always gets their money.
What about your electric bill? What about when you have to fork out a battery replacement?
Unless there’s rolling blackouts, or a natural disaster that halts power. Then what? My gas-powered car will still operate. Also, electric cars are basically the RC cars of our childhoods. Remember how long it took for such a small amount of use each time. Everyone i know played with the RC car for the first few days, and then it became junk in the closet due to inconvenience. Electric isn’t the future, so much as the past. Until we find an alternative fuel, gas is still the best and most logical and convenient option. Perhaps hydrogen in the future- but electric is whack. Especially when Portland General Electric, and other electric companies keep raising rates. Get real logical, and stop trying to act like captain planet. Common sense replacement fuels.
LOL well isnt that nice for you :) Thats the key, for YOU! Fine if the option works well for you, for others it may not. Especially for those who like to take trips out to the mountains, there are no charging stations up there and I can bring my own gas thank you. I want to be able to drive as far as I want to drive and not have to worry about losing hours trying to recharge my car while on a road trip. I will still with gas for now as that is what works for me :)
The reality is, “most motorists” don’t drive over 240 miles in a day. You charge your EV at night at home. In ten years the battery range and charge time will be nothing like today. I love never going to a gas station or changing oil, but what do I know.
the election is over. we have a new leader, President Mump.
:) and we did not have to wait until Jan. 20th. we now have $2.93 gas. (in Lebanon) and no waiting for it. the price of toilet paper has dropped for the first time in a long 4 years. Wendy’s now has $1 any size sodas. Walmart is $2.08 for a head of lettuce, down from $2.18. the golden ages are now underway! happy days are here again!
But what about the eggs?!?!?!
My jaw dropped when I saw a carton of 18 for $10.99 at Kroger’s Freddies.
LOL! Hilarious, so sad.
Yep…all ready planning on buying a new vehicle within the next 10 years.
Having lived in states with self-service, it really isn’t all that much faster than having someone else do it for you…even less so if you have to go inside and pay because there is a line inside. And what is wrong with your life that you can’t spend the five or ten minutes sitting warm and dry or nice and cool in your far?
I presume the charging station at the Fred Meyer parking lot is used, but I have yet to see a vehicle using it. An odd coincidence?
Further, just to annoy the estimable Hasso, I rarely see people utilizing Albany’s many bike lanes for their intended purpose, and not at all in winter.
Government planners plan with enthusiasm. It keeps their paychecks coming, no matter the destruction in their wake.
Well, my EV9 will be 1 year old on Dec 28. Have a little over 12,500 miles on it as of today. Taken a few 400 mile one way trips beyond just normal at home driving. Takes longer to pick up a recharge than a gas station would, anywhere from 30 min to an hour depending on how empty I am when I pull in, and whether I want to just do a quick 80% (30 min or less) to a full 100% which may take 45 min to an hour. In the meantime We usually have something to eat while we wait, and just relax.
At home we just plug in when we need to refill, and the car starts charging at 10 pm when the electricity rates are at their lowest and the cost is CHEAP. It’s cheap because electric rates are much cheaper when demand is a fraction of what it is during the daytime.
So there’s no need to ever stop at a gas station when driving locally.
It’s not hard to find a charging station because there are a lot now and a lot more coming. Convenience stores are adding charging station now. Try going to PlugShare.com and you will see how easy it is to find stations.
In 2023 you had consumer choice. It was great…eh?
Unlike in 2035 when the State of Oregon takes that freedom away from every new car buyer.
The faceless oppressor, and its enforcers, strike again.
I agree with Mac I’ve had my electric car for almost 10 years and always charge at night and don’t miss going to the gas station although now with the price of gas it’s almost like they are giving it away
They have discovered several new battery technologies that will charge cars very quickly. They will be brought to market in coming years.
… And a Merry Christmas to you too, Gordon.
“So, if you expect to live beyond 2035 and value your independence and mobility, and never want to be stuck at a “fast-charging” station, you’ll want to buy a new gas-powered car well before that fateful year rolls around.” Hasso, this seems like a such short-sighted and unimaginative view of how things will be in 2035 and even before that. Development of better batteries is happening very quickly. Driving ranges on a single charge in EVs will be much longer, especially as solid-state batteries become available, and that should be within the next couple of years. There is already a three-wheeled car, the Aptera, that can go 1,000 miles on a single charge with the help of solar panels on the surface of the car. We can only imagine how many improvements will be made in ten years. It has already been mentioned that charging times have already improved and that should also continue to improve. Even though the majority of charging will take place at home, charging stations will be much more ubiquitous. The price of EVs is coming down and should continue to do so. Tesla is scheduled in introduce the Model 2 in 2025 for under $30k and competition from China will also drive prices down. So, for you to advocate perpetuating driving polluting ICE cars in the name of convenience when you haven’t seemed to consider that convenience may be on the side of EVs. You also apparently ignore the bigger picture of why the mandate was made in the first place: climate change. Here in the Willamette Valley, we haven’t been affected as much by climate change as in other parts of the country and world, but climate scientists agree that we haven’t seen the worst of it yet. If we’re in the market for a new or used car, we have the choice to be part of the solution or part of the problem. I do commend you though for riding your bike as much as you do. That’s the ultimate non-polluting vehicle.
“You also apparently ignore the bigger picture of why the mandate was made in the first place: climate change.”
Garbage. According to scientists and environmental experts the meat industry contributes more to global warming than gas cars.
Would you support the State banning consumers from eating meat? A government “mandate” would help solve global warming more than banning the purchase of new gas cars.
Be honest, the issue here isn’t technology and the expected improvements. It is the exercise of government power over consumer choice.
I choose the wisdom of the marketplace. Evidently you choose the power of government. Sad.
Thank you for your thoughtful rebuttal, Mr. Shadle. You bring up a couple of good points. One being, should the government ban one type of pollution emitter if it doesn’t ban all pollution emitters. We might not be looking at the same sources, but the EPA says that the Agricultural Industry contributes 10% of greenhouse gases (GHG) while the Transportation Industry contributes 28%. We all have to eat, so I don’t see the government banning meat, but maybe they could mandate the practices that have been identified which will greatly reduce the GHG emissions, all of which you can about on their site at: https://tinyurl.com/EPA-GHG2024. The Transportation Industry is the largest GHG emitting sector, though, so I can see why the government would target that one first. Also, a big difference between the two industries is that there is a viable non-polluting alternative to the polluting internal-combustion engine (ICE) vehicles, as long as the infrastructure is in place. ICE vehicles weren’t banned immediately. The industry was given over a decade to make the adjustment and to get the necessary infrastructure in place. Would the industry have made the adjustment without the mandate? I don’t know, but I don’t think would be incentivized to. But this is all addressing the supply side of the equation. What about the demand side? That takes us to your other point…let the market decide. In my mind, this argument would be more convincing if we really had to pay the true cost of buying and operating the products that we buy…including the cost caused by emissions of GHGs. If someone buys a gas guzzler, they are not directly paying for the effect they have on the environment, so they aren’t incentivized to reduce their emissions economically. If they had to pay for the pollution they create, say in the form of a carbon fee, they might be more incentivized to choose a less polluting vehicle or an EV which doesn’t emit GHGs. As it is, society as a whole has to pay for the effects of an individual’s decision to pollute. If we paid the true cost of operating our vehicles or the food we eat (including a carbon fee or equivalent), I would be happy to leave it up to the marketplace. As it is though, without the carbon fee or an equivalent, the Transportation Industry is not incentivized to make the change without a mandate. And the mandate is there because the government (California in this case, followed by Oregon and other states) recognize the urgency of the issue. 2024 is the hottest on record, beating out 2023 as the hottest, which beat out 2022 as the hottest. In 2024 we passed the 1.5 degreeC increase of temperature over pre-industrial times set by the Paris Accord as the target high point. If we want to avoid the worst natural disasters, I think we need to be more serious about fighting climate change than the laissez-faire attitude of leaving it to the wisdom of the marketplace.
No problem with E/V’s as a choice available in the free market. A government mandate is another story.
Here is the bigger problem– the disconnect in the government. Roads wear out due to vehicle traffic. Oregon has a .40 cent per gallon tax to pay for roads. E/V’s don’t pay this and the state put a $100 yearly fee on E/V’s which is not equivalent to what a gas/diesel vehicle would pay in fuel tax.
And with the weight of E/V’s due to the batteries they wear out tires quickly and also cause wear on the roads but are not paying their fair share. Albany considered a city gas tax but now has opted to add the fee on the water bill to fix the roads. Which means that people that live elsewhere but drive into Albany in E/V’s will not be paying for the roads here.
Fast forward 10 years and you will have another funding problem with road maintenance if E/V’s are mandated- all because of incompetent government.
You could have charging stations on every corner, the real problem is electric grid capacity. Nobody has addressed that. If entire neighborhoods all add at home charging stations there will be transformers exploding on poles. Those transformers are rated for the current capacity of the homes.
Yes, those are indeed issues that will need to be addressed over the next decade. When there are major shifts in technologies and taxing systems are based on the old technologies, then the taxing system needs to be adjusted. In this case, there will still be plenty of ICE vehicles still on the road, paying the gas tax if there still is one, even though sales of new ICE vehicles will be banned, but as you say, EV owners won’t be paying the gas tax. Sure, one way is to collect a fee to pay for road maintenance, or maybe we shift the road maintenence funding to draw from the general fund, or maybe there’s a different idea. It will need to be fixed one way or another out of necessity. Regarding the grid, I wouldn’t say that no one is addressing that. I recently heard the CEO of Pacific Power speak at the Chamber of Commerce luncheon. He said they are very aware of the issue and are working diligently to add capacity. We can’t just look at 2035 through 2025 lenses and expect that nothing, eg road maintenance funding or grid capacity, will change in the interim.