20 Laps Around Earth

Tesla Model 3 driving around Earth by ChatGPT

Since 2007, our home has been powered by solar energy, starting with a modest 4 kW photovoltaic (PV) system. In 2011, we expanded our system by adding 8.3 kW of additional panels, bringing the total capacity to 12.3 kW. This system has been quietly generating clean energy for nearly two decades. Recently, we celebrated two significant milestones that highlight our impact.

We previously showed, on November 8th, 2024, our home solar system had generated enough energy to drive to the moon and back. We also shared one sunny day near the summer solstice, a glimpse of our system’s performance, and now we’re thrilled to dive into two new achievements, tying them to a 2018 Tesla Model 3 Dual Motor Long Range analogy.

On June 13, 2025, our solar panels reached a remarkable milestone: producing 144,405 kWh of energy since installation. This number is special because it represents enough energy to power a 2018 Tesla Model 3 to drive around Earth’s equator 20 times. The Earth’s equatorial circumference is approximately 24,901 miles, so 20 laps total 498,020 miles. Using an efficiency of 29 kWh per 100 miles, we calculate the energy required as follows: 498,020 miles ÷ 3.448 miles/kWh ≈ 144,405 kWh. For simplicity, this assumes 100% charging efficiency. Nearly half a million miles driven on clean solar energy from our roof is a testament to the power of just one residential solar roof.

2018 Tesla Model 3 LR: 

• 120 MPGe in the city
• 112 MPGe on the highway
• This translates to an estimated electricity consumption of 29 kWh per 100 miles

Just nine days later, on June 22, 2025, our PV system crossed another milestone, producing its 145,012th kWh. This amount pushed us past the equivalent of 500,000 miles driven by the same Tesla Model 3. The calculation is straightforward: 500,000 miles ÷ 3.448 miles/kWh ≈ 145,012 kWh. Reaching this half-million-mile mark feels like breaking the tape at a finish line, a symbolic victory for sustainable energy. 

Our small rooftop system, tucked away in a residential neighborhood, has been working tirelessly every day to generate clean power, contributing to a greener future. These milestones highlight the incredible potential of solar energy. From a 4 kW start to a 12.3 kW powerhouse, our system has offset significant carbon emissions, equivalent to driving a high-efficiency electric vehicle across vast solar system distances. The fact that one home’s solar array can produce enough energy to power a car for half a million miles underscores the scalability of renewable energy. It’s not just about numbers; it’s about the quiet, consistent work of a single rooftop reducing reliance on fossil fuels. I hope this inspires you to start or continue your own solar journey. One little roof, one sunny day at a time, can make a world of difference.

When You're in a Climate Hole, Stop Digging

From Oil Wells to Floodwaters: The Case for Climate Action #KeepItInTheGround's Mission to End the Fossil Fuel Crisis

  

Key Points

• Fossil fuel extraction, such as coal mining and oil drilling, contributes to climate change, which may increase the frequency and severity of extreme weather events, like the recent Texas floods in July 2025.
• Stopping fossil fuel extraction, as advocated by movements like #keepitintheground, will help mitigate climate impacts, though the transition involves complex economic and social challenges.
• The @FFfFossilFuels account advocates for a safe end to fossil fuel use.

Recent Texas Floods and Climate Connection

In July 2025, Texas faced catastrophic flooding, particularly in the Hill Country, with over 100 deaths and many missing, as reported by multiple sources. This event, driven by heavy rainfall from a stalled storm system, aligns with research suggesting climate change, fueled by fossil fuel emissions, intensifies extreme weather events like floods. Evidence suggests that warmer temperatures hold more moisture, leading to heavier precipitation and increased risk of flash floods, as noted in the Wikipedia article on the July 2025 Central Texas floods.

Fossil Fuels and Environmental Impact

Fossil fuels, including coal, oil, and methane gas, supply about 80% of global energy, but their extraction and burning release greenhouse gases, contributing to global warming. The United Nations and National Geographic highlight that these emissions trap heat, altering weather patterns and increasing flood risks. The EESI fact sheet estimates the cost of such weather events in the US at $606.9 billion between 2016 and 2020, underscoring the economic impact.

The #keepitintheground Movement

The #keepitintheground hashtag, seen in campaigns like keepitintheground.org and The Guardian, calls for halting new fossil fuel extraction to combat climate change. It serves as a rallying cry for leaving coal, oil, and gas unextracted, supported by science suggesting we must limit warming to safe levels, as per Nature’s findings.

A Comprehensive Analysis of Fossil Fuels, Climate Change, and Recent Environmental Disasters

Introduction

This report explores the environmental implications of fossil fuel extraction, particularly in light of the recent catastrophic floods in Texas in July 2025, and examines related movements like #keepitintheground and the @FFfFossilFuels account. Drawing from extensive research, this analysis aims to provide a detailed understanding of the connections between fossil fuels, climate change, and extreme weather events, while addressing advocacy efforts to mitigate these impacts.

Background on Recent Texas Floods

On July 3, 2025, a stalled storm system, linked to the remnant circulation of Atlantic Tropical Storm Barry, caused heavy rains over Central Texas, leading to deadly flooding from July 4 to July 7, especially along the Guadalupe River. According to The New York Times, at least 111 people died, with the death toll potentially rising as 173 remained missing by July 9, 2025. ABC News reported 120 deaths, with Kerr County hardest hit, recording 95 fatalities, including 36 children. NPR noted the Guadalupe River rose 26 feet within 45 minutes, highlighting the rapid onset of flash floods. The Guardian suggested these floods could signal a new norm, exacerbated by climate change, with experts warning of worsening weather disasters.

San Antonio’s rainfall intensity increased by 6% since 1970 and Austin’s by 19%, meaning more rain falls in a given hour than decades ago. This aligns with research from Climate Central, indicating a warmer atmosphere holds more moisture, contributing to heavier precipitation events.

The Role of Fossil Fuels in Climate Change

Fossil fuels, such as coal, oil, and natural gas, are the primary energy sources, supplying about 80% of global energy, as per National Geographic. However, their extraction and combustion release significant greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide, accounting for over 75% of global emissions, according to the United Nations. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), cited by ClientEarth, found that 89% of global CO2 emissions in 2018 came from fossil fuels and industry, making them the dominant cause of global warming.

Burning fossil fuels traps heat in the atmosphere, leading to rising temperatures that alter weather patterns. The EESI fact sheet details climate externalities, including extreme weather events like flooding, costing the US $606.9 billion between 2016 and 2020. Amnesty International notes that 2023 saw record rainfall causing deadly flooding in Europe and China, linking these events to fossil fuel emissions. The Washington Post emphasizes that continued fossil fuel use risks missing the 1.5°C warming limit, exacerbating such disasters.

A study in Nature suggests that to limit warming to 1.5°C, nearly 60% of oil and fossil methane gas, and 90% of coal, must remain unextracted by 2050, highlighting the urgency of reducing fossil fuel reliance. 

The #keepitintheground Movement

The #keepitintheground hashtag emerged as a call to action against fossil fuel extraction, advocating for leaving these resources unexploited to mitigate climate change. Keepitintheground.org states, “The science is settled. There can be no new pipelines, no new permits, no new exploration, and no more excuses,” emphasizing the need to halt new fossil fuel development. The Guardian features a series on climate change and fossil fuel divestment, aligning with this movement.

Keep It in the Ground blog notes, “Science has spoken: the path to a sustainable future for people, wildlife and the planet does not include fossil fuels,” urging action to avoid the worst climate impacts. Intercontinental Cry, a media platform dedicated to amplifying the voices and stories of Indigenous peoples worldwide, collaborates with the Indigenous Environmental Network on #keepitintheground, focusing on journalistic efforts to highlight the issue. This movement is supported by findings like those in Nature, suggesting significant unextractable fossil fuels to meet climate goals.

The @FFfFossilFuels Account and Broader Advocacy

The @FFfFossilFuels account supports campaigns like “Global Fight to End Fossil Fuels” and “Stop Fossil Fuels,” which demand government action to phase out fossil fuels. These efforts align with the #keepitintheground movement, advocating for a transition to renewable energy. 

Discussion and Implications

The recent Texas floods, with their devastating impact, underscore the urgency of addressing fossil fuel extraction. The connection between these events and climate change, driven by burning fossil fuels, is supported by multiple sources, including UNEP and EESI. The #keepitintheground movement and accounts like @FFfFossilFuels represent critical advocacy, but the transition involves economic challenges, as noted by The Washington Post, with communities dependent on fossil fuel industries needing support.

Conclusion

The evidence points to fossil fuel extraction deepening environmental crises like the Texas floods, necessitating action like that promoted by #keepitintheground and @FFfFossilFuels. This report highlights the need for a balanced approach, considering both environmental and social dimensions of phasing out fossil fuel usage, to forge a sustainable future.

Detailed Data Table: Impact of Fossil Fuels and Climate Change

Aspect	Details
Global Energy Supply	Fossil fuels (coal, oil, gas) account for about 80% of energy, per National Geographic
Greenhouse Gas Emissions	Over 75% of global emissions from fossil fuels, per United Nations
Climate Impact	Leads to global warming, altering weather patterns, increasing flood risks, per EESI
Economic Cost (2016-2020)	$606.9 billion in US for extreme weather events, including flooding, per EESI
Unextractable Reserves	60% oil, 90% coal must remain unextracted by 2050 for 1.5°C limit, per Nature

Impacts of the Fossil Fuel Big Beautiful Bill on Energy Systems and Our Future

Grid Stability

Grid stability requires matching electricity supply with demand using reliable, flexible sources. The One Big Beautiful Bill’s (OBBB) emphasis on fossil fuels makes the grid vulnerable to long-term exposures to fuel price swings or supply issues. It also diverts funding from modern solutions like battery storage or smart grids, which are crucial for adapting to extreme weather and changing demand patterns. Without these advancements, the grid could face inefficiencies or outages.

Renewable Energy Growth

OBBB will slow the rise of renewable energy. By favoring fossil fuels with subsidies and deregulation, it may pull resources away from solar, wind, and other clean energy options. Cuts to renewable tax credits, which have spurred jobs and investment, would make these sources less competitive. Additionally, easing environmental rules could let fossil fuels dominate markets, stalling the shift to sustainable energy, especially in areas still building clean infrastructure.

CO2 Emissions

OBBB’s fossil fuel focus would likely drive up CO2 emissions. Fossil fuels are a major source of greenhouse gases, and expanding their use would increase emissions significantly. Even with technologies like carbon capture, which aren’t effective, this approach clashes with climate goals. It could lock in high-carbon systems for years, worsening global warming and its impacts, like severe weather. Fossil fuels externalities will still exists, they just won't have to pay them, we all will with our health and well-being.

Interaction with Growing Energy Needs

Data centers, vital to the growing digital economy. They demand more energy for computing and cooling. OBBB’s fossil fuel push might initially meet this need with increased generation. Yet, many tech companies prefer renewables for sustainability and cost stability. By neglecting clean energy, OBBB could force reliance on high-carbon sources, raising costs and emissions. Without efficiency upgrades or grid improvements, it may fail to keep pace with demand, risking shortages.

Batteries and Peaker Plants

Peaker plant generators, used to supply extra power during peak demand, are among the dirtiest sources on the grid, often burning fossil fuels like natural gas or, even worse, diesel. This leads to higher emissions and air pollution per kWh. A cleaner alternative is renewables and battery storage. Batteries store excess energy from renewables, such as solar or wind, and release it when demand spikes, reducing reliance on peaker plants. Batteries also offer fast response times, adjusting quickly to demand shifts to maintain grid stability and prevent disruptions. Paired with renewables, batteries enhance grid performance, cut emissions, and support a sustainable energy future.

Conclusion

The One Big Beautiful Bill should really be called the Big Fossil Fuel Bill. Its fossil fuel-heavy strategy risks stifling renewable growth and locking in years of increased CO2 emissions. The strategy it promotes could struggle to meet the growing needs of datacenters. Integrating batteries and renewables offers a cleaner, more resilient path forward and will eventually be the winning solution. The OFFB is just one more chance for the fossil fuel industry to cling to the status quo and continue to extract from the Earth, while extracting cash from our pockets; all while choking us.

Tesla 2025 Production Q2 Update

Each year, we attempt to estimate Tesla's annual vehicle production. Now that 2025 is about half over, let's see how our 2025 prediction is stacking up.

In this article, we came up with several estimates ranging from 1.7 million to 2.08 million vehicles produced for 2025 (note we're only looking at production, not deliveries, but they're closely related). We settled on 1.9 million as our 2025 estimate. Let's see if this is on track.

Tesla’s vehicle production and deliveries in the first half of 2025 highlight a year of economic pressures and a major refresh of Tesla's most popular vehicle. In Q1 2025, Tesla produced 362,615 vehicles, a 16% year-over-year (YoY) drop from Q1 2024’s 433,371 production. Q2’25 saw production increase to 410,244 vehicles, that’s nearly identical to Q2'24’s 410,831. After Q1'25’s weak results, it’s great to see a quarter that’s not a year-over-year drop.

First-half 2025 production totaled 772,859 vehicles, trailing 2024’s first-half production of 844,201. Model 3/Y dominated with 742,289 units (95% of production), while Cybertruck, Model S/X, and Semi added 30,570 units. Production outpaced deliveries, creating a ~52,000-unit inventory surplus, signaling demand challenges.

For Q3 2025, I estimate production at 410,000 vehicles, driven by the Model Y refresh and a significant Cybertruck price reduction. One factor in this estimate is the inventory surplus. Unlike Q2, I expect to see deliveries above production in Q3. For Q4 2025, an estimate of 450,000 vehicles reflects cautious optimism, factoring in seasonal strength but tempered. These figures suggest a full-year 2025 production of ~1.63 million vehicles (772,859 + 410,000 est + 450,000 est). This would make 2025 Tesla's 3rd-best year. 2025 would be down 7% from last year’s 1,773,443 and 13% below 2023’s all-time high of 1,845,985.

Tesla’s production trend shows strong growth from 2020 (509,737) to 2023, fueled by Model 3/Y, but 2024’s dip and 2025’s mostly flat to-date result indicate a slower recovery trajectory. Musk’s 20-30% growth target is unlikely until a lower-cost vehicle emerges that opens a new market segment. Crossing the 2 million vehicle milestone in 2025 is off the table given current trends, but a 2H'25 Redwood unveiling and production start could make it feasible in 2026.

The anticipated Redwood (the more affordable “Model 2”) unveiling did not occur in H1 2025, casting doubt on a 2025 release. Redwood is aimed at competing with low-cost EVs like BYD’s offerings. It's critical for Tesla’s growth in price-sensitive markets. Delays may stem from production retooling or strategic shifts, potentially pushing high-volume output of Cybercab and Redwood to 2026. Without Redwood, Tesla’s 2025 growth relies on existing models, limiting its ability to hit the 2 million milestone. A late-2025 Redwood pilot run could boost Q4 output, but a significant impact is more likely in 2026, potentially enabling Tesla to (finally) surpass 2 million vehicles annually.

Quarter	Production	Deliveries
Q1 2025	362,615	336,681
Q2 2025	410,244	384,122
Q3 2025	410,000*	-
Q4 2025	450,000*	-

*Estimated

UPDATE: now that the OBBB has passed, the EV tax credit will be terminated on Sept 30, 2025. This will pull some demand from Q4 into Q3 as US buyers rush to buy before the tax credit vanishes. This is not likely to have a significant impact on the global total for the year.

Electric Vehicles: The Inevitable Future of Transportation

Image by OpenAI

Legacy automakers want the US Congress to stop California's plan to greatly restrict the sale of gas-only cars by 2035. Eleven other states follow California's emission plan, including New York, Massachusetts, and Oregon. Together, these 12 states account for approximately 40% of the US new vehicle market.

In May, the US House of Representatives voted to cancel the special Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) permission given to California by all previous administrations (Republican or Democrat). Without this permission, vehicles in these states would only be required to follow the (much more relaxed) federal emissions standards. On June 12th, President Donald Trump signed the resolutions that revoked the EPA waiver for three California vehicle emissions rules. 

Hours later, California's Governor said the state would sue for the right to regulate its own air quality and would double down on its efforts to transition away from fossil fuels. The Governor went on to say this move by Congress and the Trump administration will “Make America Smoggy Again.”

The Alliance for Automotive Innovation, representing companies like GM, Toyota, and Volkswagen, claims that complying with the California mandate will cause financial hardship for the automakers. They said that to comply with the rule, automakers will have to reduce the total number of cars they sell to inflate the share of EVs. They don't seem to understand that increasing EV sales is the better option. This is especially ironic that this "innovation" alliance is arguing for the status quo to continue even into 2035. Perhaps they should consider renaming themselves The Alliance of Luddite Automakers.

EVs are poised to dominate the future of personal transportation, driven by declining battery costs, technological advancements, environmental imperatives, and shifting consumer preferences. Charging infrastructure is expanding rapidly, with over 170,000 public chargers in the US as of 2025. Battery costs have dropped over 80% since 2010. This has improved EV range while making them more affordable (and more profitable). By 2035, battery costs will (again) decline significantly, and EVs will be more profitable than gas-powered vehicles. 

EVs offer superior performance, lower maintenance costs, and zero tailpipe emissions, aligning with global efforts to combat climate change. Governments worldwide are setting ambitious targets, with the EU aiming for all new cars to be zero-emission by 2035. Consumer demand is surging, as evidenced by EVs accounting for 9.5% of US vehicle sales in 2024, up from 3.2% in 2020. These trends signal that EVs are not a niche but the future of mobility.

US legacy automakers risk falling behind if they resist this transition. By lobbying to delay California’s 2035 EV plan, companies like GM and Ford threaten to cede ground to EV-only brands such as Tesla, Rivian, and Lucid. These newer players are fully committed to electrification, with Tesla alone commanding over 50% of the US EV market in 2024. Rivian and Lucid are gaining traction with premium electric trucks and luxury sedans. If legacy automakers slow their EV investments, they will struggle to compete with these agile, EV-focused brands that are capturing market share and consumer loyalty.

Meanwhile, Chinese automakers are accelerating their EV ambitions, posing a long-term threat. Companies like BYD and NIO are making significant inroads in Australia and Europe, with BYD’s affordable Atto 3 SUV becoming a top seller in Australia. China is the world’s largest EV market, with over 50% of global EV sales in 2024. Chinese firms are investing heavily in innovation. They are not lobbying to slow progress. They are producing cost-competitive models with advanced features. By 2035, Chinese brands are likely to enter the US market (even if that means buying out US brands to gain a foothold). If US automakers stay on the Luddite path, they will not be prepared to face the fierce competition from these global players.

Even if the current US administration supports delaying EV mandates, this will not ensure the competitiveness of legacy automakers. Short-term policy reversals cannot halt the global shift toward electrification. Delaying EV adoption risks leaving US companies unprepared for a future where EVs dominate. To remain competitive by 2035, US automakers must embrace the EV revolution right now and invest in innovation, rather than using political obstructionism to cling to outdated technologies.

The US has a storied history with automotive innovation, and companies like Tesla, Rivian, and Lucid are now leading the charge in the EV revolution, showcasing American ingenuity on a global stage. These homegrown brands have set benchmarks for performance and sustainability, with Tesla’s market dominance and Rivian’s rugged electric trucks capturing the nation’s imagination. Meanwhile, legacy automakers like GM and Ford are steadily adapting, contributing to the EV landscape with models like the Chevrolet Equinox EV and F-150 Lightning, even if they’ve been slower to pivot. The presence of Chinese EV brands like BYD and NIO in the US market underscores global competition, yet American innovation continues to shine.

This July 4th, as families gather for barbecues and fireworks, the most patriotic thing our politicians could do is to support American-made innovation, put the US on track to be globally competitive, and stop trying to drag our energy policy back to 1950.

Summer Solstice 2025

Image via Tesla

In the northern hemisphere, the summer solstice occurred on June 20th this year. It unleashed a sun-soaked bonanza of free energy for folks with solar panels glinting in the sunshine on their roofs. Those sleek photovoltaic babies soak up rays and churn out the kilowatt-hours right where you need them. This slashes those pesky transmission losses that nibble away 5-10% of grid power like a sneaky snack thief. With solar, your roof becomes a mini power plant, fueling your home with clean, sun-kissed juice.

Pair your solar with a home battery, like the Tesla Powerwall, and you’re the superhero of the cul-de-sac. You can laugh off blackouts while your neighbors fumble for flashlights. Summer’s here, and with it come those long sweltering days when air conditioners hum like a buzzing swarm of caffeinated bees, working overtime to keep your home cool, stressing the grid to the brink. Solar panels swoop in like a cool breeze, powering your AC and easing the grid’s sweaty burden, helping keep the lights on citywide.

Got an electric vehicle? Charge it with sunshine! Tesla’s Charge-on-Solar feature lets you juice up your EV straight from your rooftop rays, turning your Tesla into a sun-powered chariot. You can zip past gas stations, grinning as your car runs on free solar swagger. If your panels are pumping out more juice than your home and EV can gulp, the excess spills onto the grid, powering your neighbor’s Netflix binge. Net metering can score you credits, shrinking your electricity bill faster than a popsicle in July. And if your utility has VPP events, you can even get a fat check.

Solar has never been cheaper, with costs plummeting more than 50% over the last decade. A 6-kilowatt system runs $10,000-$15,000 before a juicy 30% federal tax credit (which may not be around for much longer). Financing means you can start saving with pocket change upfront, and your electric bill savings often outpaces the loan payments. Systems can pay for themselves in 5-10 years. Then, once they are paid off, it gets even better. Electricity rates might keep climbing, but you won't care.

Rooftop solar isn’t just smart; it’s your ticket to a cooler, greener, and brighter future.

One Sunny Day

Here's our solar data from a few days ago. You can see by the color where the solar energy was directed. The first thing to note is that production started at 6AM and finished at 8PM. That's 14 hours of production, peaking around noon at 8.3kW. 

You can see that the early morning energy went into the battery. Then at 7AM, when the higher Time-of-Day rates started, the solar was redirected to run our home (shown in blue). Any energy beyond the home's need was directed into our EV (red). By 10AM, the car was charged, then the Powerwall (green) soaked up the extra juice. Before noon, the Powerwall was full; then the surplus solar flowed into the grid (grey), running our meter backward and powering other homes on our block.

You can see the large spikes of blue in the afternoon; this was the AC cycling.

We have many more net-positive days like this one ahead of us.

Disclosure: I am long Tesla

PGE VPP :: Smart Battery

Smart battery image by ChatGPT

Portland General Electric (PGE) started their Virtual Power Plant (VPP) pilot (called SmartBattery) in the fall of 2020. We were among the first to sign up for the program. This 5-year pilot program is coming to an end soon, so what happens next?

The pilot (unsurprisingly) hit a few start-up snags in the beginning. However, that is the point of a pilot (find out what you don't know on a small scale, learn, adapt, then deploy on a larger scale). The good news is that PGE learned lessons and made changes. In one case, I know they made a change specifically based on my data, as evidenced by an email they sent specifically to me stating that they were improving support for "super users" based on my system specs and usage. 

They have also made changes to the method to determine participant payment amounts. Initially, PGE used a system similar to the Smart Thermostat program. You were paid $20 for each month that you were enrolled, regardless of participation. This has obvious issues: someone who participated in five events in a month would be paid the same amount as someone who participated in only one, and this does not account for the level of participation in each event (during an event, did you send 1 kWh or 50 kWh?). Obviously, the incentive needed to align with the value provided, and PGE changed the participation payments accordingly.

What's Next?

This was a 5-year pilot, and it is coming to an end in September. Approximately 450 households are participating, and we want to know what's going to happen when this pilot ends. The good news is that PGE wants to continue the program and move it from pilot phase to a full-fledged program. 

The proposal for the new SmartBattery program must be approved by state regulators and CUB. I don't expect anyone to oppose this program; it's a win-win for the utility and participants: it helps stabilize the grid, and reduces CO2 emissions, while paying participants.

Benefits of VPPs

VPPs integrate distributed energy resources like solar panels, batteries, and demand response systems into a cohesive network. They optimize energy distribution, enhancing grid reliability and efficiency. By aggregating small-scale energy sources, VPPs provide utilities with flexible, cost-effective alternatives to peaker plants, reducing reliance on fossil fuels. 

VPPs enable real-time energy management, balancing supply and demand to prevent outages during peak demand hours. VPPs also lower energy costs for consumers by prioritizing cheaper, renewable sources and reducing transmission losses, rather than firing up the most expensive and dirtiest sources available. 

VPPs also enhance energy resilience, allowing communities to maintain power during outages by leveraging localized resources. They are the first step to the internet of energy, supporting grid modernization, and integrating smart technologies for better forecasting and control. Additionally, VPPs create economic opportunities by enabling participants to earn incentives for sharing energy. As renewable energy adoption grows, VPPs will play a critical role in building sustainable, decentralized energy systems, ensuring affordability, reliability, and environmental benefits for all.

EVs Must Pay Their Fair Share

Proposed $250 Federal EV Registration Fee: Fair Share or Political Ploy?

Two guys stroll up to a bar. One’s clean-cut, suit pressed, looking like he just stepped out of a cologne ad, while the other guy’s a mess, wearing stained sweats, reeking of smoke and body odor, dirt smudged on his face, and a cigarette dangling from his face. The doorman eyes them both, smirks, and says to the clean guy, “That’ll be $25.” Then he turns to the mess and goes, “You’re good for $10.” The clean guy sputters, “What?! Why am I paying two and a half times more?” The doorman chuckles, “Buddy, you’re too clean, you’ll make everyone else in the bar look bad. We charge extra for that!”

Well, it looks like the federal government has hired this doorman. A new federal proposal imposes a $250 annual registration fee on electric vehicles (EVs), arguing they use roads and should contribute to maintenance like gas-powered cars. The logic seems clear: roads need funding, and EVs (like all vehicles) use the roads, highways, and byways. But is $250 fair, or is it a move to hinder EV adoption? Let’s dive in.

Gas-powered cars fund roads via the federal gas tax, set at 18.4¢ per gallon. The average US driver covers about 13,500 miles annually, and a typical gas car gets roughly 25 miles per gallon. After a little number crunching, this means the average driver pays $99.36 in federal gas tax per year. Compared to the proposed $250 EV fee, EV owners would pay over 2.5 times more than gas car owners for the same road use.

Vehicle Type	Annual Mileage	Fuel/Tax Type	Annual Cost
Gas Car	13,500 miles	Gas Tax (18.4 cents/gal, 25 mpg)	$99.36
Electric Vehicle	13,500 miles	Proposed EV Fee	$250.00

What’s a fair share? Since EVs use roads similarly to gas cars, their contribution should align. The $99.36 gas tax benchmark shows the $250 fee is excessive. A fair EV fee would match gas car contributions, around $100 annually, possibly adjusted for mileage. This ensures equity without penalizing EV drivers.

If either vehicle type should pay more, gas cars should be the ones to pay additional fees because of all the externalities they hoist onto society. EVs deliver community benefits that gas cars can’t match. EVs produce no tailpipe emissions, reducing air pollution and health costs tied to smog and respiratory issues. Studies estimate gas-vehicle-related pollution costs the US billions annually in healthcare and environmental damage. EVs help curb this. Additionally, funds spent on EV “fuel” (e.g., electricity) stays local, bolstering utility companies and renewable energy investments. In contrast, gas money often flows to oil companies and foreign markets, siphoning money from local economies. For all of these reasons and more, EVs deserve fair treatment, not a steep fee. EVs are the hometown heroes.

I didn't buy an EV as an elaborate (and expensive) scheme to avoid road maintenance taxes, but that doesn't mean i want to overpay either.

The $250 fee reeks of political maneuvering to slow EV adoption. It burdens clean, efficient vehicles while dismissing their societal benefits. It is not a fee because the roads need funding; it's a fee for making gas cars look bad. It's charging the clean guy at the bar extra just for looking good.

If this is the right way to raise funds, then let's apply it to every vehicle. Cancel the federal gas tax and make everyone pay the same amount to use the same roads.  

Policymakers should focus on building an infrastructure for the current century, rather than the 1900s. Impeding progress will only put us behind. Sure, EVs must pay their share, but charging them far more than gas cars is neither fair nor forward-looking. It’s a roadblock to a cleaner future. It’s like charging joggers more for park trails if they _don’t_ litter. It’s absurd! EVs need to chip in, but this fee is a pie-in-the-face of progress. Let’s not let gas-guzzling dinosaurs and their cronies drag us back to the Jurassic era.

Waymo is the Hydrogen Solution of Ride Hail

Image by OpenAI

Both hydrogen fuel cell vehicles and Waymo’s autonomous ride-hailing service are technical marvels, yet both stumble on the steep slope of scalability, especially when costs come into play.

Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles, such as Toyota’s Mirai and Hyundai’s Nexo, power electric motors through a clever process: hydrogen stored in high-pressure tanks reacts with oxygen in a fuel cell, generating electricity to power the motor and drive the vehicle, with water vapor as the only byproduct. A full H2 tank is about 5 kilograms, and this delivers a 300 to 400-mile range. Refueling takes just five minutes. Technically, it works beautifully. The Mirai cruises highways and city streets, matching gasoline cars for refueling convenience and outshining them for emissions.

So why aren't we all driving zero-emission H2 vehicles today? Price and scalability are the roadblocks. Building a hydrogen refueling station costs $1 to $2 million, and the US has only about 50, mostly clustered in California. Compare that to 120,000 gas stations or 50,000 EV chargers across the country. Then there’s the fuel. The cost to fill up a fuel cell car in California is around $16.50 per kilogram. A Toyota Mirai with a 5.6kg tank would cost around $92 to fill up. However, Toyota (and others) offer free fuel for the first three years to help bridge the price gap between hydrogen and gasoline. Assuming owners had to pay for the H2, let's compare the cost per mile. For a Toyota Mirai, it's around $0.31 per mile. Compare that to $0.12 per mile of a gas car and H2 as fuel is like paying $9 per gallon for gas. No one wants to do that. This explains why they have to give away years of free fuel just to sell (lease) the things.

Scaling FCVs to millions of users would require thousands of stations and cheaper hydrogen, demanding billions in investment. High costs keep FCVs a niche player, not a mass-market contender.

Now, let’s shift gears to Waymo, Google's Alphabet’s self-driving transportation service. Waymo’s fleet of modified Chrysler Pacificas and Jaguar I-Paces uses LiDAR, radar, and cameras to navigate without a driver. AI processes a 360-degree view, dodging pedestrians and traffic with precision. It works. Waymo’s vehicles log thousands of miles in cities like Phoenix and San Francisco, safely delivering passengers. But, like hydrogen FCVs, scalability is a struggle. A Waymo vehicle with its sensor suite and compute costs around $100,000, though bulk production might trim that. Operating costs pile up fast: maintenance, software updates, and remote human oversight push per-mile costs to $2 to $3, dwarfing the ~$1 of a human-driven Uber ride. Waymo has raised $5.6 billion, yet profitability lags. Each ride is subsidized, and scaling to millions of vehicles means building charging stations, service hubs, and data centers, costing billions more. The tech is solid, but the price tag for widespread adoption rivals the challenge of hydrogen’s infrastructure.

Both Waymo and hydrogen FCVs prove the possibility of the technology. FCVs glide along, emitting only water, while Waymo’s cars steer through chaos without a human hand. Yet both hit the same scalability wall: cost. Hydrogen’s refueling stations and fuel production demand massive upfront investment, just as Waymo’s sensors, operations, and infrastructure do. Neither technology is cheap enough to flood the market. FCVs need a vast network and affordable hydrogen; Waymo needs leaner tech and lower operating costs. At CarsWithCords.net, we admire the ingenuity, but the path to scalability looks daunting. For now, both remain bold experiments, waiting for a cost breakthrough to drive them mainstream.

Lidar or Camera, Which Sensor Will Win for Autonomous Vehicles?

 Autonomous Driving: A Revolution in Motion

Imagine a world where getting around is as easy as tapping an app, no matter who you are. When autonomous vehicles hit the mainstream, they’ll rewrite the rules of personal mobility. For the blind or elderly, who often face the isolation of being homebound, self-driving cars promise freedom. No longer will a lack of driving ability mean missing doctor’s appointments, social gatherings, or simple errands. These vehicles will be like loyal chauffeurs, ready to whisk anyone, anywhere, safely and reliably. This isn’t just convenience; it’s a lifeline to independence.

Tesla wants to be a primary transportation provider with their Robotaxi service, launching in June of this year. What's different about Tesla's implementation is that it is camera-based and could scale very quickly. Unlike competitors leaning on pricey, specialized sensors like LiDAR, Tesla bets on common cameras as its primary eyes. Vehicles with LiDAR and trunk-sized datacenters might work in select test zones, but they’re like gourmet dishes only available at a few elite restaurants. Tesla’s approach is the food truck of autonomy: affordable, adaptable, and ready to serve the masses. Scalability matters if we want self-driving cars everywhere, not just in elite regions.

I received some feedback on the last article saying that LiDAR was a must-have for safe autonomous driving, but let’s debunk that. LiDAR (LIght Detection And Ranging) uses laser pulses to map surroundings. It is very useful in many applications, but it also has serious blind spots. LiDAR cannot see the color of traffic lights or detect when another car’s brake lights are on, both of which are critical for safe driving. LiDAR struggles in bad weather, as rain, snow, or fog scatter the laser pulses, clouding its view. Plus, LiDAR is expensive, driving up costs for vehicles; affordability is required for a mass-scale solution.

LiDAR-based systems use cameras to catch what the lasers miss, like traffic light colors. That's right, all autonomous vehicles (LiDAR or not) use cameras. However, having both LiDAR and camera input leads to the sensor fusion problem. Sensor fusion is the artful science of blending data from multiple sensors. Combining these different sensor streams creates a problem: What happens when sensors disagree? If one sensor claims it’s raining while another warns that you're heading towards a brick wall at 70 MPH, which do you trust? This clash can confuse the driving AI, causing the AI to make poor or dangerous decisions. Tesla’s camera-only approach sidesteps this by providing one consistent data stream to the AI’s path planning and decision-making processes.

Autonomous vehicle (AV) cameras often sense beyond the human-visible light spectrum, which spans ~400 to 700 nanometers. Many AV cameras also detect shortwave length infrared light, from 700 up to 1100 nanometers, allowing them to see in the dark for improved night vision. This gives AV cameras an edge over human eyes. At night, these cameras excel, capturing clear images in near darkness.

Because AV cameras cover a spectrum of light frequencies, including visible and shortwave infrared, they have an advantage over LiDAR's single laser frequency. The broader spectrum of the cameras allows them to capture diverse visual data. In a way, cameras are already receiving multispectrum data that's "pre-fused" to a single video stream. LiDAR, on the other hand, operates at a fixed frequency (typically 905 nm or 1550 nm). LiDAR excels at depth mapping but misses color and texture details.

The question is, will Tesla's camera-based FSD be safe enough? Crashes will happen at some point. Every AV program of note has had incidents. A fatal crash ended Uber's self-driving program. We'll see if Tesla can navigate this rubric.

Autonomous driving is poised to transform lives, especially for those sidelined by mobility challenges. Tesla’s scalable, camera-driven solution is like that trusty food truck, bringing freedom to every corner, not just the fancy neighborhoods. By avoiding LiDAR’s limitations and the ambiguity of sensor fusion, Tesla is cooking up a future where self-driving cars will be as common as smartphones. This isn’t just about getting from A to B; it’s about giving everyone a ticket to ride, no matter their circumstances.

Disclosure: I am long Tesla