If AI and robotics reach their logical goals then projects like this are about to become more and more important. I don't mind machines taking all of the jobs, as long as all of those displaced workers don't starve.
Electric pickup trucks are hard, mostly because they need to fill an imaginary, or aspirational use case. More than 99% of the pickup truck miles in the US could be filled by an electric truck with a 150 mile range that people charge at home. But no one will buy that truck because of the desire to take long trips, and potentially tow a long distance.
The driving and ownership experience of electric vehicles is MUCH better, but it is hard to convince buyers to try it out.
>The driving and ownership experience of electric vehicles is MUCH better
Until EVs solve the cost problem as well as the "tracking device" and the "I have 8 iPads built into the dash" problems I'm not very excited.
The Slate looks pretty exciting in this regard but I'm worried it will ever exist, or if it will fall badly short of cost estimates. It's already slipped to ~$27.5k due to the expiration of the EV tax credit. In practice, whenever a car says "starting at $xx it's usually impossible to find that model and you can only get the midrange models which are $5-$10k more than the base price.
[edit]
Interestingly as well, the Slate sidesteps the towing problem by refusing to attempt to tow. It's rated to tow 1,000 lbs, which is effectively nothing. It's still got a respectable payload, though, so it does work as a truck.
Yes. For ICE cars I can just buy older cars. _Some_ modern ICE cars avoid this. As recently as 2024 the Nissan Frontier base model has no cellular modem, and also only has one small screen but otherwise has physical buttons and physical gauges.
The Slate would be the only EV coming out that avoids this problem, which combined with the price is one of the reasons I'm interested.
You can buy an old ICE and convert to electric. At this point most ICE that isn't a tracking device is old enough that you need to be comfortable doing your own maintenance anyway so the effort of the above is no longer an excuse.
I live in a two car household, and I need one vehicle that is comfortable on long trips, and one to handle truck jobs like hauling brush, firewood, oversized items and 3 bikes. My wife, daughter and myself vastly prefer our electric car (IONIQ 6) around town, but even as a big fan of the car I am still uncomfortable using it on long trips, so our truck (Honda Ridgeline) is still a gas vehicle.
I predict that EV trucks with a range extender will do very well in the US, and will be the catalyst behind the move to electric trucks. Once people get the experience of an electric truck they will love it, but the option to dump in gasoline and drive 400 miles without charging is an imaginary barrier that stops most customers from giving it a shot.
Personally, I would love to see an electric truck that can be charged while driving by an external generator, possible mounted to a trailer.
I was going to make a similar point - the math changes quite a bit if you're a multi-car household - in that case it absolutely makes sense to have at least one vehicle that's a short-range EV.
My household is a newer hybrid Ford Maverick and an older ICE Impreza (that gets worse fuel economy than the Maverick) - if we were replacing the Impreza today we'd probably go for a 2026 Leaf or a used Chevy Bolt.
I had a 2004 WRC that we replaced with the IONIQ 6. The Hyundai is a great upgrade, and let us keep AWD. We could get by with less range on that car, but for now we just take the truck if we are going more than 100 miles one way.
I really thought a sub post was better than one long one. I never understood the two account thing except for specific situations where you don't want to talk about X with an account that has a lot of NSFW content on Y.
Not for nothing but this is also one of the reasons electric motorcycles are lagging.
A HUUUUUGE number of motorcycles never go more than 50-75 miles in a day. CycleTrader is awash with 3,4,and 5 year old bikes that have barely been ridden. A 100 mile range electric bike (e.g., the Harley Livewire) would 100% fill those needs.
But people think they're gonna go on long trips, or whatever, or ride more, and they scoff at a bike you can't ride all day even though they'll never actually ride a bike all day.
I think you’re way off tbh. Something like 85% of the motorcycle market is for pleasure. Plenty of those bikes have a range of only ~100 miles as it is. Stopping is not really the problem. The problem is the charging infrastructure does not exist and the charge times are way too long.
Do some motorcycle owners commute on their bikes? Of course, but that’s clearly the minority of the market. The reason cycle trader is full of low mileage bikes is that the whole activity is kind of a pain in the ass when you think about it. Add charging to that and it’s just too much to bear.
Pleasure riders often ride on nice sunny sundays in groups to ruralish areas where it’s scenic and the roads are winding with few traffic lights etc. they need to be able to “gas up” a significant number of bikes quickly. And that shit is a pain to organize so they do it like twice a year. Hence the low mileage.
Electric motorcycles really are a super hard sell. The stark varg makes way more sense cause that’s a type of motorcycle that gets carried to the destination most of the time anyway. So the range thing is way less of an issue and the upsides stand out way more. That’s probably why I see way, way more Vargs or bikes like them than live wires.
>Plenty of those bikes have a range of only ~100 miles as it is.
This is not true. If I'm wrong about this, I'd love to be shown a citation.
The Livewire problem is MOSTLY that (a) Harley made it too expensive and (b) Harley has to performativly hate anything that isn't big and loud with a vibration at idle that would churn butter. And they do this to the detriment of their brand.
It’s more common among the sporty bikes. A lot of these bikes didn’t even have a fuel gauge until that long ago. Just a fuel light. Tons of guys say they go about 100 miles for fill ups. Maybe that’s cause of the history of the bikes, you want a number that’s easy to remember cause you were really looking at the odometer as your gas gauge. Even a Harley bob only has 165 miles of range according to the website. Assume you don’t go from absolutely full to empty, 1 gallon less than the maximum, you’re at 120 miles.
Yeah the live wire is real expensive. Where are you going to charge it? It doesn’t make sense. Compared to a car the battery is tiny, so you should be able to charge at like full DC fast charge rates on a level 2 charger. Except the original livewire had a super weak built in charger so it couldn’t charge at above 1.4kw? So you had to look for dc chargers. It failed for really good reasons. That’s the point I’m trying to make, it failed for good reasons. I think it’s actually rational.
Traditional motorcycles are a terrible use case for replacing with electric right now. But on the commuter side they are becoming insanely popular (although I think usually they are the illegal suron type bikes).
I’m not gonna defend harleys and cruising. I don’t get it. I’m just saying these things are mostly toys. The new bike buyer is buying a toy. But lots of people have lots of reasons for things. Personally I think sporty cars are about handling and power and stuff so I think sporty EVs are great. Most people disagree with me. They want noises and “character”.
So sure, you pick a high-test bike absolutely not intended for anything but urban hooliganism.
There are virtually zero bikes with an range of only 100 miles. People still joke about the VMax because it actually DID have that limitation. It's the exception that proves the rule.
The vast majority of bikes are good for materially more than that. Even my very staid, traditional Bonnville will easily make 150 on the highway if not farther. My BMW will double that.
My main point about the Livewire is that it's more than Harley failed IT because they're absolutely terrified of annoying their MAGA boomer base that is incredibly hostile to the whole IDEA of EVs.
Daily commuter bikes are a GREAT use case for electrics, IMO. I know a couple folks here in Durham who do it (one, in fact, on a Livewire). I haven't looked hard at electric bikes myself because I do much farther rides than that, so the utility isn't there -- but as an urban runabout, they're awesome.
My dad has been telling the same story for ten years. He wants to take a trip around US national parks, sleeping in the back of the car, under the stars, which is why his car needs a 500-mile range and must be fueled by gasoline. This conversation always comes up at family gatherings when he asks how I like my electric car.
He's in his mid-80s with prostate problems. He has never taken the trip.
When a new truck is $80k, it has to do everything becuase its an only vehichle. If they made $20k-$30k trucks, then its alot easier to justify it as a second vehichle that isnt required for long trips.
That's very true. I bought a quad-cab midsize truck and it feels like the ultimate compromise:
- Not amazing at hauling people
- Only OK payload
- Not the best gas mileage
- Too expensive (but still cheaper than other midsize trucks -- $36k)
With how much everything costs this truck really _had_ to be a compromise. It had to be able to do everything. I'd have much rather had an old crappy truck and then a normal family car, but those seem to have all been priced out.
IF you do this even once a year you don't really have any other option. Finding a rental truck that allows you to tow is hard. The vast majority won't allow it. When you do find one it is generally in an inconvenient location and very expensive. I can justify keeping my truck (long paid for) just because just 2 trips a year need a truck and so it is cheaper overall to just own the truck (tax and insurance is low) than to rent.
I'd love to have an electric pickup truck. It'd primarily be for farm use, so no long distance concerns, and being able to bring electricity to the field would be a huge boon. It is really the perfect package.
But I wouldn't buy one for the same reason I won't buy an ICE truck right now: They are way too overpriced — costing around 300% more than the truck I currently have cost when it was new, even though inflation is only 40% over the same period.
Cost is a concern, and there will be a cost penalty at purchase time for a while. That will impact some people, but there is still a big market for expensive trucks.
For now. It won't last. Trouble is that these EV projects are all being abandoned now and won't be available to purchase when the market comes back to reality.
This made me realize that another set of batteries should be installed in the boat trailer (etc), rather than carrying them around every day when not needed.
The charger station situation will probably need to be figured out however.
This admin seems to love Kei trucks, and Edison Motors makes retrofit kits. If US legacy auto is unwilling to build EV pickups domestically, we'll import the components and bolt them together.
Beyond that, there's a huge culture/propaganda problem for the demographic. Electric vehicles are gay, for sissies, we run on gas like my grandpappy did, climate change is fake, toaster on wheels, Joe Biden wants to take our trucks away, etc. Also the legitimate repair complaint: joe redneck can easily get parts for his 1998 F150 and fix it himself. There is no EV repair culture yet.
I'm 35, don't own a vehicle, and have never owned a vehicle. I live in SF. I think I'm finally getting to the point in my life where, maybe, I want a vehicle. I'd use it to take myself to camping music festivals and Burning Man. That's about it. Oh, I'm sure I'd find other uses for it, helping friends haul stuff, etc... but, practically speaking, most of my needs are consistently addressed by public transit and/or Waymo.
I guess what I'm trying to say is - literally the only time I feel like I'm missing out on a vehicle is when I have a need to transport a large amount of stuff a large amount of miles into desolate environments.
Does that mean my desire for a truck is imaginary/aspirational because, if I were to own it, 99% of the time I'd be content with a low range battery? I can see why people would think that, but, to me, it seems more like the 1% is the rationale for owning the vehicle.
/Owning/ the truck would be imaginary/aspirational as you imagine yourself using it often enough to justify the expenditure. If it's for trips that are 3~4 times a year it probably makes more sense to rent.
Best car for you is a used beater. It'll be fun for road trips, and then when it rots all year unused in a parking garage you shouldn't feel too upset about it because it was shitty to begin with.
Why would you buy a car to use it thrice a year? You'll end up paying a thousand dollars a trip, amortized, on the sticker cost alone. Multiples if you buy a new top-line pickup? Let alone the maintainence nightmare from leaving your poor clunker sitting around for months.
Also, you must understand that your use case here isn't even remotely the norm.
I don't think people who can meet there needs with public transit are the target market of many car manufacturers. Most truck miles are driving to work and the store. Your use case sounds like it would be perfect for renting a vehicle, especially since it would save you from storing and insuring it an extra 300 days per year.
> Your use case sounds like it would be perfect for renting a vehicle, especially since it would save you from storing and insuring it an extra 300 days per year.
Have you ever looked at the real costs of renting. More rentals won't let you tow. They won't let you go off road (no burning man!), even if allowed they will charge you for the damages typical of going off road. Any just when you think you have navigated all that you get there to pick up the car you reserved and they are sold out.
I'm not saying renting cannot work, but it isn't nearly as clear cut as people keep saying.
I agree with you and made a comment in another related thread. I think there’s just a subset of people online who don’t realize it’s a value judgement or just take issue with others judgement of value in owning a truck.
It's all about convenience, like most things in life. How many times per year do you need to go through the hassle & headache of renting a vehicle before it makes more sense to just buy one?
1% of 365 is still nearly once a quarter. That would be enough for me.
Yeah but then you can't put a snorkel on it and extraction boards and expedition gas cans so you can advertise how adventurous you are in your spare time.
Credit unions, or small banks are likely to be helpful in some situations. When building our house 8 years ago we had a lot of trouble getting the construction loan mostly because of 1-2 bad comps in our area. One of the big banks turned us down with no recourse with an assessment that included a picture of the wrong lot (a farm field across the street). Another said no one should build a house under 3k square feet, so no to our plan.
Our little local bank was able to actually take a look and approve us.
> we had a lot of trouble getting the construction loan mostly because of 1-2 bad comps in our area
Yup. The broadest categorization is are you first minimizing cost or chasing approval. If the latter, you’re better off with someone intensely local. If the former, you want economies of scale. (Of course, one should still shop around even if focusing on approval first.)
My solar install is scheduled for December. Even if it ends up missing the cutoff for a tax break I still think it’s the right thing to do. The combination of investing in green energy and locking in my effective electric rate is the smart move right now.
… and I heard on Friday that OpenAI is planning a data center 15 miles south of me. That can only make things worse.
We cancelled our install after TN removed the state level breaks. It pushed the payback out past the expected lifespan of the panels (25 years). I would have been fine with a 10 year payback, but 25+ was just not worth doing.
Is this because of the labor costs in the US? In other countries the payback period is much shorter. Someone I know in Brazil told me it is 3-5 years for them.
On a related note, I asked my AC guy if he knows any trustworthy solar installers. He told me that only crooks are in that business :)
> On a related note, I asked my AC guy if he knows any trustworthy solar installers. He told me that only crooks are in that business
It's basically this.
There is very little robust competition in the solar installation market, and a lot of the market is a principle agent problem on top of it.
Almost all these solar installation firms targeted at residential are more or less financial engineering companies selling loans wrapped up with solar as an afterthought. They make all their money on the financing end.
I started to look into getting a highly customized solar+backup power setup done at my place, and I just gave up due to how difficult it was to find anyone to throw any amount of money at even when I never hoped to see a payback on the project. I just wanted it to ride out potential power outages.
If you can DIY you can get payback in under 5 years for many locations. But it's just a lot to learn to do perfectly the first time.
> Almost all these solar installation firms targeted at residential are more or less financial engineering companies selling loans wrapped up with solar as an afterthought. They make all their money on the financing end.
I agree. It's like car dealerships who are more interested in getting you on financing.
In the US, there's often a large labor/materials upcharge on anything that can be branded as "green" - you see a lot of the same thing with higher end heat pump systems and such, too. Efficiency is (for whatever reasons) frequently sold as a luxury product feature in our market and the installers take advantage.
>> I would have been fine with a 10 year payback, but 25+ was just not worth doing.
We are struggling with this also -- with or without an incentive. The payback period is long. Makes sense if you think forward rates will be super-high. But people are quite aggressive with their forward rate estimates, yet super-liberal with the lifespan estimates.
I've dealt with enough appliance breakdowns to know all the tricks companies pull
- You have a 25 year warranty, but only on parts. The labor ends up costing more than an entire new system.
- You have a 25 year warranty, but only on labor. The parts ends up costing more than an entire new system, possibly because the parts are no longer made. Labor warranty is now useless and you need to buy a new system all over.
- You have a 25 year warranty on parts and labor, but the company declares bankruptcy and you have no warranty any longer.
- You have a 25 year warranty on parts and labor, but the company got acquired and the acquiring company "cant find your warranty details in their system". Regulators are powerless to actually help despite months of letters.
- You have a 25 year warranty on parts and labor, but a tree/hail falls on the house and they declare it out of bounds of warranty. You go through your home insurance, but they only cover current value, not replacement value. You buy a whole new system, only partially covered and start all over again.
- You have a 25 year warranty on parts and labor, but manufacturer blames the malfunction on improper installation, but the installation company is long-gone/retired/non-responsive/bankrupt. Possibly the Accord insurance form is fake also (how many people actually verify the insurance Accord is real?)
Been there, done that, on all the above. Eventually, your only religion is deferred maintenance because you know you get ripped off royally no matter what you do. We havent yet heard horror stories because these systems are new, but you'll hear all the above as time goes on, and people realize the actual life of their systems are far shorter than their payback periods.
Most good solar panels have a 12-15 year warranty on the panel, and a 25-30 year warranty on performance.
But this is a warranty, and you have many panels. If they're all going to fail, they will fail sooner. If one fails or breaks eventually, even if it's not under warranty, replacing the panel is dirt cheap. Of course you need to replace it with an identical panel, so it makes more sense to buy extra panels and just assume some will die. But even if you paid for a replacement, that's already just $100-$200, and it'll probably be cheaper in the future.
So the warranty isn't really that important long-term. They're more important for the short term, and a Tier 1 solar provider's so reliable that you don't really need it anyway.
Skill? If you can use a screwdriver, and lift 50lbs, you can do it.
1) Throw the "DC Disconnect" switch to de-power the panels. 2) Unscrew old panel from rails. 3) Disconnect MC4 connectors (with fingers). 4) Remove old panel and install new panel. 5) Connect MC4 connectors. 6) Screw panel into rails. 8) Throw "DC Disconnect" lever to re-power panels.
There's also a step 7 where the panel needs to be connected to the ground of the other panels, but with modern systems there's these metal clips that just clip onto the edges of adjacent panels to make the ground. Your system may be different but the ground is a pretty simple connection of metal to metal.
Yeah I just have absolutely zero interest in owning, being responsible for, and avoiding scammers in my own electrical power generation, with some vague hope of breaking even decades later. I'll gladly pay a utility for reliable power, regardless of wind and cloud conditions, where they are responsible for all the infrastructure upstream of my meter.
Right. I do a lot of self sufficient things (including some of my own power generation) but I lack the desire to become my own power utility end to end. It’s already frustrating enough since I provide water and sewage to multiple households and electrical connection to the utility with solar and generator backup.
You'd probably be cutting it close with the life of the panel (though maybe electricity price increase will save you)
For CO2 I think it pays itself off fairly quick. It's probably the best investment you could make from a CO2 and local air quality perspective, maybe if your insulation is very bad or switching to a bike from a large personal car
I’m in Canada, in a tight valley that snows a lot.
7.8kw on the roof, even if I paid full price out of pocket it would be fully paid off in 13 years, and then I get $1000 a year of free power for another 20 or so years.
First you've got names that describe the structure in some detail, like the International Chemical Identifier (InChI) & SMILES. For paracetamol, the InChI is `InChI=1S/C8H9NO2/c1-6(10)9-7-2-4-8(11)5-3-7/h2-5,11H,1H3,(H,9,10)`.
One level up is the IUPAC name, a systematic name for a compound which is less descriptive than the InChI but still generally allows determining the structure of that compound. For paracetamol, that's N-(4-hydroxyphenyl)acetamide.
Next up you've got generic names for drugs. Different countries have different systems for naming generics, but they're usually designed to give some hint as to the sort of drug it is. E.g. drugs with generic names ending in "-vir" are antivirals. Most names are standardized in the International Nonproprietary Name system¹ but some drugs (particularly older ones) have different generic names in different countries.
Last up you've got the brand names. These will often vary quite a lot & tell you nothing about the drug.
The INN wikipedia article¹ actually uses paracetamol/acetaminophen as the example for comparing various national naming standards.
No, N-(4-hydroxyphenyl)acetamide is the IUPAC name. Paracetamol & acetaminophen are "generic" names for it when used as a drug. Tylenol, Panadol, and quite a few other brand names are used worldwide¹.
The International Chemical Identifier is InChI=1S/C8H9NO2/c1-6(10)9-7-2-4-8(11)5-3-7/h2-5,11H,1H3,(H,9,10).
This is true in so many places. Once a week I get mad at Swagger for this. Why can't I select the endpoint URL?!? Why do I have to retype it when I am trying to discuss it with our backend guy?
We are experimenting with our daughter this year: Our school system offers advanced math via their remote learning system. This means that during math class, my kid will take online 6th grade math instead of the regular in-person 5th grade math.
We will have to see how it goes, but this could be the advanced math solution we need.
One thing that helps to counter this somewhat is that if your paper is proven to be wrong, the journal can force a retraction. A retraction isn't exactly career ending, but it is a huge deal and will have an impact on future jobs and funding.
reply