I just checked my bill. Here in California, in the SF Bay Area, we're paying 82.7 cents per kWh. That's 62.6 cents for delivery and 20.1 cents for generation.
Those websites that report lower rates are incredibly wrong and misleading.
I don't think the numbers are "wrong," they are just aggregate. Obviously within a state as large as California there will be a lot of variation between regions.
I live in California and my energy prices are between $0.29 and $0.34 depending on the time of day. GP's point still stands that WV is cheaper than CA, but how much cheaper depends on which region of CA you are comparing it to.
These aggregate numbers they don’t reflect what most ratepayers actually pay.
For example, PG&E’s current E-TOU-C summer rates in SF Bay area are around $0.83/kWh peak and $0.62/kWh off-peak. That’s almost double the CPUC’s statewide “average” of ~$0.34/kWh.
But whatever, I'm just upset at how much we have to pay.
To me the bigger issue is that the infotainment system can affect the core function of the vehicle. That seems completely unacceptable, regardless of when an update is pushed out. The two systems should be separate with the infotainment system as the lesser important and unable to actually effect the core system.
That is the result of automakers trying to push everything into the HMI so they can eliminate physical controls.
They are doing to cars what electronics manufacturers did to TVs - taking an already-solved UX problem and destroying it with poorly made software in the name of progress.
This doesn't surprise me. Websites and blogs and search results are polluted with trash. On the plus side, it has ruined any "explore" type watching of anything for me, which is making me spend less time on these platforms.
Looking for advice? One approach that might be interesting to try is to subscribe to channels and restrict yourself to your subscriptions. You could even bookmark the subscriptions tab in Youtube so that you don't land on the main page with recommendations.
Oh, I like the idea of sticking to subscribed channels. It's the equivalent of only using the Following tab on Twitter.
It's funny how invariably the algorithmic feed ends up being overused and pushes people to self filtered content. Facebook is the earliest example I remember of this.
This seems like a good move. I do hope that slow moving consumers of the software in question can start anticipating an upcoming release and construct remediation plans instead of doing that after the release.
Why was this 4 year old article posted with no additional context?
Lots of red flags here on the author's part. This seems like a case of someone not following through on their tradein, missing a payment due to a changed bank account, and then ignoring Apple’s emails about the issue.
The author makes it sound like Apple acted out of nowhere, but the reality is they gave notice and took action only after the author failed to respond. If you don’t return a trade-in and your card goes past due, it makes sense that Apple would revoke access to services tied to that purchase. Framing it as Apple “holding accounts hostage” feels misleading—it looks more like the natural result of missed obligations and poor follow-up.
Because today is the day that I read the blog post.
I agree with you that Apple taking action on the account is not wholly unreasonable. What I found shocking was the inability to contact someone who could resolve the situation. I know this is a common issue with Google, but had expected Apple to be different.
> What I found shocking was the inability to contact someone who could resolve the situation.
But they did. The first person was unfamiliar with the issue, likely because the Apple Card program was relatively new at the time. They opened a case to escalate.
Apple’s phone support has been relatively good in my experience. I expect they’d have this situation more integrated into first-line support in 2025 than they did when the program was new.
Identity services from the large companies are very convenient, but the citizens of Google, or Apple, or Microsoft are largely faceless and rightless citizens of a corporation with no ability to contact anyone for anything.
The story and lesson is simple is to tie as little as possible to identity systems using a domain you don't own.
This isn't a statement of expecting perfection from any group, just the opposite, of knowing that things can happen unexpectedly, where is the middle ground in a relationship that impacts the user more than the company if the ID is lost.
I'm not sure I believe they never replied. The author missed an email saying their payment wasn't accepted and that all of their services would be disabled, that's pretty serious. I'm supposed to believe Apple just lost the ticket?
I'm also not sure why the author didn't follow up: not following up has the direct consequence of being charged a substantial amount of money.
Yeah, I mean, I understand them being charged for the failed trade-in. Their credit card was charged, so Apple supposedly got the money (from Goldman Sachs). Why did they still block his account (owned by Apple) when he failed to pay his credit card bill (owed to Goldman Sachs)?
The linkage between the card and the account doesn't actually seem important here. They locked the account that the unpaid iPhone was set up with. Why would Apple continue to provide service to an account that was being used by a device that was effectively partially stolen from them?
If you buy a Corolla, pay it off, then a few years later buy a Camry too, and you default on its loan, should they be allowed to remotely disable both of your cars?
They didn't disable his phone, they disabled the services that ran on their servers. Should you still get updates and navigation in both of your cars if you effectively steal the car? I can't think of a case where that would be reasonable.
Moreover, cars are much more easily repossessed than phones and laptops.
> They didn't disable his phone, they disabled the services that ran on their servers. Should you still get updates and navigation in both of your cars if you effectively steal the car? I can't think of a case where that would be reasonable.
Society has decided that defaulting on a car loan is not equivalent to stealing a car. This is why you can still go to jail for the latter even though debtor's prisons were abolished.
> Moreover, cars are much more easily repossessed than phones and laptops.
Sure, let's go that route instead. Should they be able to repossess your paid-off Corolla because you defaulted on payments for your Camry?
You're not even trying to make a good faith argument.
1. They didn't stop him from using his devices. They stopped his calendar from syncing.
2. They didn't reposess his devices. In fact, all of the inconvenience the author faces is in services he expects Apple to provide after he doesn't pay them for their hardware and ignores their emails.
3. Should your Corolla's cloud based gps routing stop working when you break your contract with Toyota over your Camry? Arguably yes. The car didn't default on the loan, you did. You broke your contract, why would you expect the other party to continue allowing you to be their customer?
Because that's really what this is. The device is unaffected. Apple cut them off as a customer. Suggesting they did anything more than that is disingenuous.
> services he expects Apple to provide after he doesn't pay them for their hardware
The problem is that Apple didn't just disable these services on the device he didn't pay for. They disabled them even on the devices he did pay for.
> Should your Corolla's cloud based gps routing stop working when you break your contract with Toyota over your Camry? Arguably yes. The car didn't default on the loan, you did. You broke your contract, why would you expect the other party to continue allowing you to be their customer?
Because the contract says what happens if you default, and that isn't one of the things it says.
Apple is under no obligation at any time to maintain your subscription because they too have the right to terminate the contract for iCloud and your Apple ID. If you get to the end of the billing cycle and they don't want you as a customer, they have no legal requirement to continue billing you and providing you service. Imagine how outrageous it would be to live in a society where sellers were prohibited from terminating contracts with customers who didn't pay them.
Moreover, you sign a contract when you agree to the terms of the purchase, as well as the trade in. None of this is a surprise.
The department that handles these problems is unreachable by phone instead of very interested in edge cases and false positives. That's an intentional choice.
The weakest link in Apple’s chain is the return and tradein fulfillment side. They use distinctive boxes for trades and the clown car of couriers — FedEx. Many of the couriers doing pickups at FedEx are private contractors or subcontractors, and their loss rates are high between pilferage and incompetence.
I’ve personally experienced two occasions where iPhones have been stolen in transit by FedEx personnel — one vanished and one, bound for an Apple repair facility in Pennsylvania, was delivered to a residential address a few miles from my city.
In neither case was Apple aware, which was surprising to me as they typically have their shit together. I only realized there was an issue on the one occasion where they were going to charge me for a replacement device, and checking the tracking indicated the phone was delivered to a stay at home mom. The whole process must be outsourced to a meh contractor, and insurance cleans up the mess.
I read the article from the point of view that Apple's response was at issue.
The missed notification is something that we have to take the author's word for, but it could very well be true. Perhaps I'm more sympathetic because I ran into a similar situation recently. I called a company because I hadn't received a bill, was told that they recently sold off the relevant division, and that they sent me an email explaining how to switch my billing information over to the new owner. I don't recall receiving such an email. If it did hit my inbox, it was likely deleted. I would have regarded such an email as a phishing attempt without a second glance. The situation may have been different for the article's author, but they may have still had a legitimate reason for missing it.
Apple's response was also excessive. I would expect them to lose subscription services, but not access to their accounts. At in my experience, my Apple accounts remain active even though my last hardware purchase from them was well over a decade ago. (Clearly I am not receiving subscription services, but the accounts still exist and my purchases are still accessible.)
While Apple's response is nowhere near Google's (e.
g. the customer was able to find out what the problem was and resolve it), it sounds like Apple overstepped bounds.
To be fair Apple didn’t respond to the reply that they hadn’t received the trade-in kit and it’s some kind of hostage situation. No other credit card company could block all these services because a payment was 15 days overdue.
I have an appleid that I’ve had for over 15 years. A couple months ago I bought a Mac and I decided to do it by getting an Apple Card and financing it at 0%. I made the apparent mistake of not creating a new Apple ID for this new machine, because it’s quite a shock to me that if I miss an Apple Card payment, my 17 year old Apple ID that controls my long-paid-off phone is at stake. That’s an unusual amount of leverage for a company to have.
the idea here is that Apple Card is owned by gs. Being delinquent with AC shouldn’t have any impact to currently leased/paid for digital assets such as Music/Movies.
Good job blaming the victim. Hail corporate, I guess
not paying for a new phone in full does NOT warrant retaliatory action against all of the author's accounts.
block the device, sure. send collections after him for the unpaid amount, sure.
retaliating by blocking all his unrelated, paid for, accounts is yet another reason apple should be broken up. it also doesn't sound like they refunded him for the days of usage that were lost that surely still had to be paid for.
Charging is an issue for almost everyone I know. If I could get my utility company PG&E to upgrade my power, I could consider it, but we're told we have to wait years. So we have no way to charge, and there are not enough chargers around here are.
I know a bunch of people who charge on standard 120V/15A. That'll let you add 40 miles of range overnight. It's not as good as 240V/50A that'll fully charge your car in 4 hours, but it is enough that they only rarely have to visit local fast chargers.
That's what I do. And I still don't even bother to charge most nights. If you live in a relatively urban area and don't do a lot of driving that is more than adequate.
The problem is your emissions are minuscule and the difference between you owning an electric car or gas car is meaningless if your goal is to save the climate.
The big, heavy carbon users need to switch. But they have needs that are difficult to serve by electric
Electric generation is the low hanging fruit but some nations are already at the stage that the power sector has lower emissions than the transport sector and it is probably the next dominoe to fall. The country saves money and gets cleaner air plus battery storage to aid in greening the rest of the grid.
> Everyone needs to switch to carbon neutral eventually, not everyone has to do it at the same time.
That was true decades ago, but now it's gone far too long without any real action, and things have gotten far enough out of control that everyone really does kinda have to do it at the same time if we want a shred of hope to turn this flaming bus ride over the cliff-edge around (or even slow it down at all). It could have all been a relatively painless transition, but now there will be suffering involved, and the longer it's delayed, the worse the suffering will be.
I would say that the transition we are currently witnessing is real action: while the pandemic made it difficult to be certain, the extremely rapid growth of renewables — even though electricity is far from the only concern — seems to have resulted in emissions either peaking or being very close to peaking.
I'm not sure if we really could have gone much faster. 20 years ago I would have bet on nuclear energy and hydrogen cars, not because they were cheap, but because nuclear was already at the right scale and hydrogen can obviously be scaled up quickly whenever the energy is cheap. Instead, we got PV so cheap I'm planning on getting a balcony system with a pay-back period of less than a year because it makes sense to get that immediately while my partner and I plan how to do a full-power system, and batteries are so cheap they're not only used in cars but also for grid power time shifting.
But to expand on what I said before, electricity is far from the only concern: we need to reduce emissions by 99.9% to be sustainable. If you look at this graph, https://ourworldindata.org/ghg-emissions-by-sector, the remaining 0.1% is the smallest line in the pie chart — "grassland". Switching all road transport to electric helps a lot (11.9%), it's not something to be dismissed simply because other things also need to be fixed.
The direct impact of an individual vehicle is small. Collectively, they justify further investments in infrastructure and research, eventually addressing more needs.
I agree with the replies indicating emissions aren't trivial, but to answer to the more self-serving interests that are well represented on HN: have you experienced NEVER going to a gas station?
Seriously, that is a great feature of EVs...
Not to mention the massively reduced cost/mile. I expect my used Nissan Leaf to pay for itself in ~5years...
Not to mention the AMAZING acceleration of even a non-performance oriented EV...
My car is my biggest source of emissions in my life. (I use a heat pump except on the coldest days) Though I just got a PEHV, which has greatly reduced my profile. I also live where my electric comes from renewable sources (my local utility generates more wind in a year than all customers use), so I can just ignore the impact of electric generation.
Yes making a car uses a lot of carbon, but the car lasts a long time and generally in a ICE car the carbon emissions from using it are greater the manufacturing.
1 car has miniscule emissions, if you call 50 tons of CO2 emissions miniscule, I don't. 2 billion cars & trucks together comprise the largest source of carbon emissions.
I did that for years, just using an average power plug (now I moved to a house that already had a fast charger installed). The car, a PHEV, came with the recharger and charged fully overnight. The car only goes around 40km on EV alone, but that's more than enough for my daily needs. And it's almost "free", we did not notice any change in the electric bill after buying the car!
I find that the 30 miles my PHEV gives me is not enough for daily needs several times a week. Though I seem to be saving hundreds of dollars every month in gas while I haven't noticed a power bill increase (I've only had it for a few weeks so I can't fully gauge the impact, but so far it seems to line up with your report). At the point I can safely tell most people that they should just refuse to look at any new vehicle that isn't PHEV or full EV. Used car buyers should be willing to pay a lot more of the above - it will pay off in the long term.
Note that the big battery in a BEV is a great averaging mechanism. As long as your average drive is less than the amount you get from an overnight charge, you're likely fine. If you're adding 40 miles of range a night to a 300 mile battery, you have to have 4 consecutive days of 100 mile usage before you have to hit an external charger. Mix a few days of 20 mile usage between those 100 mile days and external charger usage is exceedingly rare.
Or, if we are getting fancy, 240V/20A, which can be run with just a single 12/2 Romex, provides around 3x the "range" per hour, since there is some fixed overhead losses to heat the battery pack, turn electronics on, etc.
In new-ish (but not new enough to have EV charger prewiring) construction, garages sometimes have a dedicated 20A receptacle circuit for a garage freezer. If its a dedicated circuit with one outlet, you can rewire the 120V/20A to 240V/20A to get 3.8kW vs 1.4kW on a 120V/15A. The cost to do this (to code) would be about $150, or $50 if you don't care about GFCI. Could also buy a used, cheap, hardwired EVSE rather than making it an outlet.
While it's not cost effective, I've been debating getting a $300 smart switcher that plugs into my dryer's 240V / 30A, and includes an adapter to the 50A plug my home charger users, while preventing charging while the dryer is in use.
Dryer is next to garage, still need to make a "fancy" hole in the wall, but definitely like the idea of the faster, more efficient charging option.
In the meantime, slow-ass 120V/15A charging is plenty for my needs.
I don’t know where you live, but I charge my EV using two phase 240V outlet (same as the ones used by washing machine) and it takes about 8 hours to charge from 30% to full, which is more than enough for 99% of my use cases
Unfortunately, a lot of people here who live in apartments have to wait for any electricity to be added to the parking lot at all, even 120V is generally unavailable. It's definitely restricting adoption.
Yes, but also - people who live in apartments and condos are the most likely not to even own a car in the first place, and if they do, drive it the least.
The people who are doing the most driving are the suburban folks living in houses with big yards and driving 30 miles into work every day.
And that's a larger chunk of the total population in the US than the apartment dwellers who own cars.
Your metro may vary.
Rome wasn't built in a day.
Charging will come to newer apartments, and then older apartments.
In my metro there are a lot of apartments in the suburbs that are just as car dependent as any single family house. Some have bus service, but it is the service for those who after 5 DWIs can't get someone else to drive them, not the fast frequent service that makes people willing to take the bus if they have any other option.
Sure, same situation here. Lots of apartments in mostly car dependent areas.
But there's still a lot of single-family homes, yes? Like, the majority of people living in those areas are in single-family homes? So probably the majority of car owners?
30% in my suburb (10 years ago there were farms between it and the city so this is new) live in apartments of some sort. Majority is single family, but still a significant enough number in something else.
So 70% live in probably new build single family construction, likely with 200A electrical service in their garage. Those people can probably easily swap to an EV, outside other complications.
Easily 50%+ of households around you could probably have an EV. And yet people act like it's only some tiny miniscule slice of the population which could easily change to an EV.
Maybe people otherwise like me, but I've long ago realized for most people an EV with decent range (the leaf is not quite there) would work for most people. However such do not exist, if you buy new there are few options, if you are drive used cars you are stuck with what you can find.
The atypical part is only that this is an all new one - suburbs have existed for more than 100 years now, so there are a lot of older houses in the suburbs, many of them don't have 200 amp service (though the owners are upgrading them as they as things like AC that need more power and were not considered in the original design)
Sure, there are suburbs that have existed for a long time and are still going strong. And a lot of 100 year old suburbs that became financially unviable and are now empty or torn down.
But large chunks of some of the largest metro areas are made up of massive suburbs largely built from the 2000s onwards. I'm talking Houston, Phoenix, DFW, Austin, Atlanta, Denver, San Antonio, Kansas City, Oklahoma City, Tucson, Knoxville, and similar areas. And that's just areas I've visited.
Sure, there are 100+ year old neighborhoods in Dallas. But around me, some homes were made in the 50s, a big spurt were made in the late 70s and early 80s, then a massive amount were built in the 00's to literally still being constructed. Massive neighborhoods, apartment complexes, shopping centers, and more exist where there was farmland just five years ago. This makes up a large percentage of the growth of this city. It's not like they're building 100 year old houses for the 30% of growth over the last 25 years.
Go take a look at satellite images of Prosper TX. Of Princeton TX. McKinney TX. Allen TX. Rockwall TX. Dickinson TX.
Where I grew up in Houston in the late 80s/early 90s, you practically couldn't find a house that was built before 1975 other than the derelict remains of old farm houses. The house I grew up in was built in '93 and was kind of out there at the time (had to take a dirt road to get to the neighborhood!) And there's been a ton of construction since then, going further and further into the swamps. Woods where I grew up playing in are now full of single family homes.
So no, the sprawl of suburbs continuously marching more and more into the country side isn't a new thing and it isn't something rare in the slightest. It's happening practically everywhere that's growing in the US and has been for 30+ years.
This is a problem that an administration could easily solve given enough motivation, so it is fundamentally a problem with US administrations. Provide high incentives to provide easy access to charging infrastructure from federal funding. This is simply not an issue in many other countries that actually place value on modern infrastructure, or an issue that is quickly rectifying itself, except in the US.
But that doesn't put money into oil profits and hurts their bottom line.
IT need not be federal. Your state can do more than the federal government - some of the most effective changes are things the constitution doesn't give the federal government power over. Require 50 amp capability to every parking spot for example is something only the states can do (possibly you can limit this to residential). For that matter states could just build good transit systems, while there are federal subsidies most states are big enough to go alone and pay for it out of the savings from their road budget.
I charge every night on standard power. I only ever charge using fast chargers when I’m over 100 miles away from home and want to drive back same day - this barely ever happens.
I briefly owned a Smart EV, a decade ago or so, and handily recharged it from 110 overnight. But obviously with a larger vehicle, longer range, larger battery capacity, charging it from low to full must be quite the consumption of energy.
It would be nice if somehow we could move to lighter cars where the same range would require half the battery capacity, therefore half the charging resources to go from low to full.
Compromise. I love driving tiny cars, but once in a while I need to haul a large load (you can't rent a truck for this in many cases - I've tried: normally it isn't allowed in the contract even when it is there are restrictions. All that assumes you can find something for rent when you need it. So I drive a large truck. (well once a week I drive a large truck, most of the time I bike)
I seriously doubt you need to "upgrade" anything, just plug in the car.
Unless you're trying to have the highest grade fast charging at home, your existing electrical connection is almost certainly adequate. But since a car at home can charge overnight, you almost certainly don't need any kind of fast charging...
Depends on range. My PEHV only has 30 miles of range, sometimes my morning errands use that and it would be nice for a 1 hour charge over lunch for the afternoon errands. (most days 30 miles is plenty). Or better yet just mandate 70 miles minimum range which will get most daily errands.
This is why I keep saying it's good to put PV cells onto cars *despite* that being a suboptimal place for the cells and the car bodies not being big enough to generate 100% of what they need.
Putting them there makes the necessary grid upgrades much smaller than they otherwise would be.
A car and get maybe 200 watts in the best conditions - not enough to be significant. Even if parked in the sun all day you won't get much range from that.
Now a semi truck might actually get significant added range.
US collectively does ~3.3e12 miles per year[0], over 283e6 registered vehicles[1], or 32 miles per vehicle per day.
EV efficiency is around 24-30 kWh/100 miles[2], so that's around 8-10 kWh/day.
200 W is what I expect as a 24h average; that's 4.8 kWh/day, 48%-60% of average usage.
I'd expect a semi to be a much smaller percentage because of getting driven further each day — drivers get in the news for spending longer than they're supposed to behind the wheel.
200w is an instantaneous measure, not a daily measure. I would guess just over 1kw/h generated over the course of a day - between the panels not being at the correct angle, clouds, and just how long the sun is up that seems reasonable. You could get a large SUV up to maybe 3 with the most efficient panels in the desert.
I pointed out a semi because for long distance shipping they don't use much power (they get as much as 10mpg - but I don't know how to turn that into watts) and because of that long trailer they could potentially be close to energy neutral around mid-day (though only for a couple hours during ideal conditions).
>200 W is what I expect as a 24h average; that's 4.8 kWh/day
I guess we don't know where you live, but on the surface of planet Earth, you only get 12 hours of daylight, averaged over the course of a year. Plus dusk and dawn aren't really good for solar power. And then clouds are also a factor for many locations.
I'm already accounting for all that. Footprint of a car is close to 8-10m^2, that area of 20% cells with a 10-15% capacity factor (covering night and clouds) is 160-300 watts.
I don't see the need for sarcasm. Most mid-size and up companies have security departments. And they use tools to make their jobs easier.
The problem with the cloud, from a security standpoint is that is it much more complex than a traditional on-premise infrastructure, especially if you go the "managed services" route and have minimal code.
Those websites that report lower rates are incredibly wrong and misleading.