Electric vehicles (EVs), their emissions, and future viability

Pat Dolan said:

Depends on who owns the wind generating capacity. Different states and provinces do things differently and the ones we work with seldom own renewables, those are generally IPPs (Independent Power Producers).

Click to expand...

Not sure how ownership has any effect. IPPs get paid per kWh. If their wind farm is curtailed they produce fewer kWh and make less $$$. Less curtailment is good for everyone.

nwdiver said:

Before. Solar set-ups do add value.

Click to expand...

Uh, just like, er, diesels....

From what Pat said, until the public understands long-term maintenance costs for renewables, they will have a small market share.

Home builders are very regional as are solar set-ups. Home buyers normally look for the lowest monthly mortgage payment, not always for energy efficiency due to costs and perceived maintenance challenges. Sub-contractors have a bad reputation almost everywhere....

But healthy competition for quality HVAC may someday create a better market for things like solar. Not happening in my area - yet.

nwdiver said:

Not sure how ownership has any effect. IPPs get paid per kWh. If their wind farm is curtailed they produce fewer kWh and make less $$$. Less curtailment is good for everyone.

Click to expand...

I think he is talking about ROI.

Tin Man said:

Uh, just like, er, diesels....

Click to expand...

No. Diesels are valued based on the market and that's dependent on demand which can be influenced by stuff like emissions cheating.

Solar is Valued based on it's production, if a PV array will produce $20,000 in electricity over the next 12 years it's worth ~$20k at least according to the American Appraisal Institute.

nwdiver said:

What's your definition of 'reasonable'? I'm always amused by people that claim the ~10 year payback period for solar or wind is too long while supporting nuclear which takes >25 years. If you roll solar into a mortgage it can effectively pay for itself on day 1 since your mortgage payments go up ~$100 and your electric bill goes down ~$120.

Click to expand...

Many homeowners, I'm sure, are unlikely to stay for 5 years let alone 10 or 20.

Really? 10 year payback? Last I've heard its a 22 year payback for a system that lasts only 20, but I digress. Maybe for a fully subsidized up-to-date system, dunno.

Home builders put into their homes much cheaper materials than the buyer might think. The profit has to be there to include solar, so I would think the cost needs to be much less, especially if not subsidized by taxpayers and grid owners.

nwdiver said:

No. Diesels are valued based on the market and that's dependent on demand which can be influenced by stuff like emissions cheating.
Solar is Valued based on it's production, if a PV array will produce $20,000 in electricity over the next 12 years it's worth ~$20k at least according to the American Appraisal Institute.

Click to expand...

Huh? Diesels add extra value. Everyone should drive them. Emissions cheating by whom? The regulators that "fixed" diesel to be like more polluting gasoline vehicles? Ha

Data on cheating VW's actual pollution difference is not available for a reason. It's not that bad.

Nothing wrong with adding value with renewables. Yet to be accomplished without massive regulation also as well as hidden costs of maintenance in the long run. Just like current diesels....

Tin Man said:

Many homeowners, I'm sure, are unlikely to stay for 5 years let alone 10 or 20.
Really? 10 year payback? Last I've heard its a 22 year payback for a system that lasts only 20, but I digress. Maybe for a fully subsidized up-to-date system, dunno.

Click to expand...

Does it matter? Your overall monthly payments are lower. Sell the house and the next homeowner benefits from the same deal.

Where are you getting 22 years? That may have been true in 2010 but not 2019. The last PV system I sold was for ~$56500 (~$40k after the tax credit). It's producing ~38,000kWh/yr and electricity here goes for ~$0.11/kWh.

nwdiver said:

Does it matter? Your overall monthly payments are lower. Sell the house and the next homeowner benefits from the same deal.

Where are you getting 22 years? That may have been true in 2010 but not 2019. The last PV system I sold was for ~$56500 (~$40k after the tax credit). It's producing ~38,000kWh/yr and electricity here goes for ~$0.11/kWh.

Click to expand...

For a private house? Marketable without tax credits? Taxpayers are picking up the tab for very expensive luxury/bragging rights. Surely the public is as ready to "save" as they are when they buy their luxury trucks and SUV's instead of vastly more efficient cars.

I can assure you that the cost of the solar panels will not add enough value to the house when it comes to price, but I could be wrong.

Yes, you're right. The public is not rational.

Tin Man said:

I can assure you that the cost of the solar panels will not add enough value to the house when it comes to price, but I could be wrong.

Click to expand...

Yes... you're wrong... but only according to math. In the example I provided the PV system will add ~$50k to the appraised value of the home. 12 years of production. The cost to the homeowner was ~$40k. Even without the tax credit the appraised value will exceed the cost of the system minus savings after ~18 months of operation. And the cost of solar is still declining rapidly. I expect <$2/w to be the norm in ~5 years down from ~$2.50/w today.

nwdiver said:

Yes... you're wrong... but only according to math. In the example I provided the PV system will add ~$50k to the appraised value of the home. 12 years of production. The cost to the homeowner was ~$40k. Even without the tax credit the appraised value will exceed the cost of the system minus savings after ~18 months of operation. And the cost of solar is still declining rapidly. I expect <$2/w to be the norm in ~5 years down from ~$2.50/w today.

Click to expand...

If you think homeowners will flock to add $40K (after taxpayer subsidy) to their house for a small amount of savings on electricity if any (accounting for maintenance, interest and finance fees etc.), you might be a bit optimistic.

Math is an interesting truth-telling activity.

Roofers are an interesting bunch. They drink a lot.... Electricians are also somewhat less than satisfactory in cost and availability. Best to see how the market goes after the 23 trillion dollar national debt gets to where it's going (hint: pay loans off as a priority, use liquid cash and keep a diversified retirement plan).

I admire early adopters. Its a hobby.

Rooftop PV is far from the most economical way to install renewables, it's the utility-scale projects that are much cheaper.

A year ago, there were bids averaging $21/MWh (that's 2.1 ¢/kWh) for utility-scale wind plus storage, and $36/MWh (3.6 ¢/kWh) for utility-scale PV solar plus storage, within the US regulatory environment: https://www.greentechmedia.com/arti...solar-plus-storage-price-in-xcel-solicitation

Granted, those bids are expecting price decreases in the technology as time goes on, but we'll see how those projects go - there's certainly plenty of companies confident that it's possible.

And, even with the added cost of rooftop PV, it can still be cheaper than the transmission+generation costs of the grid, especially with either a favorable net metering plan or batteries to time-shift the load.

bhtooefr said:

Rooftop PV is far from the most economical way to install renewables, it's the utility-scale projects that are much cheaper.

A year ago, there were bids averaging $21/MWh (that's 2.1 ¢/kWh) for utility-scale wind plus storage, and $36/MWh (3.6 ¢/kWh) for utility-scale PV solar plus storage, within the US regulatory environment: https://www.greentechmedia.com/arti...solar-plus-storage-price-in-xcel-solicitation

Granted, those bids are expecting price decreases in the technology as time goes on, but we'll see how those projects go - there's certainly plenty of companies confident that it's possible.

And, even with the added cost of rooftop PV, it can still be cheaper than the transmission+generation costs of the grid, especially with either a favorable net metering plan or batteries to time-shift the load.

Click to expand...

Yeah, economy of scale plus the ever-changing lifestyles of home ownership will probably tilt the "savings" toward utility buyers. Ending subsidies would make the market honest and efficient. A well configured carbon tax could improve things too.

Tin Man said:

Yeah, economy of scale plus the ever-changing lifestyles of home ownership will probably tilt the "savings" toward utility buyers. Ending subsidies would make the market honest and efficient. A well configured carbon tax could improve things too.

Click to expand...

This is exactly how to CAUSE a problem, not fix it. There isn't a government on this planet that could organize a pissup at a brewery, never mind giving them carte blanche to pick winners and losers. HTF do you think you (i.e. the Uncle Sam U) manged to get $23Bn upside down (doubling in only 8 years!!!!)?

This is my initial opinion on the big picture of the PV at a your home residence (I live in Texas). Plan A: go the route of 'packages' offered through place like Costco (Sunrun). Your cost will be $$$$ and ROI --> You paying for large overhead + the salary of the CEO and other top executives of these 'packaged' companies.

Plan B would be to find a trust-able and experienced small contractor to make the install (not easy probably). Shop around to buy the PVs and the rest of the needed hardware. More time consuming but ROI might be much more appealing than plan A above

Having owned a home, installing solar on it, and then subsequently selling it within the past 18 months in Southern California I think I can offer some real-world experience to the topic.

The first thing is when I moved to the desert I wondered why there was no solar pretty much anywhere. The utility co. is building out huge solar farms along the 8, or rather a 3rd party entity that will lease them to the utility co., but very little rooftop solar in what would seem like a no-brainer.

After installing our solar, I can understand a lot better. The first thing is that we have cheap electricity by California stanards. No TOU but also .11/kwh after taxes and fees, which is roughly 1/3 to 1/4 the cost of the more populated areas of the state. I also had to bring contractors from Arizona because no one in the more populated areas was familiar with the environment and few were willing to travel to the desert for the install. It wasn't helping that rules were changing across the state creating a rush on the installs before years end.

Second up were the roadblocks the utility co. threw my way. There were tremendous hurdles in getting the paperwork done let alone getting anyone on the phone or in person who knew what to do or how to do it--largely on account of there not being many installs in the area but also because they aren't incentivized to throw the switch on for "their" customer. After the install was finalized, it took about two months for them to throw my switch. The installer actually threw the switch after about 3 weeks and just told me to turn it off before the final inspection. I'm pretty sure I got double billed for those few months: billed for both what I pulled and billed for what I pushed to them since the meter wasn't smart enough to figure out what was going on...or I wasn't smart enough to read it. It's hard to tell and the entire processes and systems are purposely obfuscated to create this consumer difficulty. The bottom line is that the meter didn't "spin" backwards until a good six months into it and after numerous checks with a local electrician and the utility co.'s techs.

When it was all said and done? None of the savings that were penciled in. Between the moving target the law has allowed with regards to how utils charge customers, the environmental effects on panels (not just less sun, but also reduced efficiency from too *much* heat as we found the case to be in an environment that consists of most of the day under the sun in the most perfect angles all year round), and the tax tomfoolery there exists a lot of daylight between the cost on paper and the cost my bank account reflected.

Just one example: the utils charge a mandatory monthly service fee for all customers. That's not new, but what is new is the amount of that charge varying depending on whether you are a net producer or consumer. It used to be that if you produced 1kw of energy you put that into your bank and could draw it later. The utils started charging for that over and above the customary montly surcharge. If you were grandfathered, like our old system, they interpreted the rules (and contract I signed formalizing that agreement I just outlined above) to allow them to charge retail for energy pulled but only credit energy pushed at the wholesale level. That's currently at .03/kw and I'm not even sure they get it that cheap yet. Regardless, the writing is on the wall for that one and it will only drop lower from here. I anticipate by the time solar farms are widespread the wholesale cost to utils will be quoted at .01/kw, if that. My anticipated prouction was supposed to cost me about .09/kw. I think I was hitting that even with all these things I'm talking about but it changed the ROI to almost double, which was well over 10 years. At the time, we had planned on retiring in that home so I wasn't worried about it. But it did clarify for me why no one in the area was bothering to do it. The savings were so marginal and the costs/frustrations were so high it wasn't viable for most of the area's population. We had access to a little over $20K for the system, but I don't think that's a common situation for homeowners these days.

My lender warned me that the average home owner stays in a home for 7 years. She also said everyone thinks they won't be an average home owner. I think she said most sell long before the 7 year mark, as in closer to 3-4. We refused the ARM with closing costs covered because we weren't going to be the average (we were going to retire in the home)...and then we sold it 4 years later! ...such is life

Since the time we had installed the panels and sold the home, the rules had changed again. I hope you all understand the trend that things never change for the better for a consumer in terms of lower costs in a situation like this. That's my experience anyway and it's worth looking into the trends in your area to see if they are like mine because it has important implications for tying yourself to a system for 20+ years. Even with my contract the co. was still managing to find room for interpretation to raise various rates and refuse to payback at agreed upon rates. Even in months where I used less than I made, I started to pay extra because they categorized me as a "net producer," which meant that I was being paid back at the wholesale level in credits. The surprise happened at the end of the year, when they "settled" the bill: I believe I had about $250 dollars worth of credit but only received about $86 dollars when I cashed it out.

So that was the cost side of things. The selling side of things were also different from what one reads.

Solar panels are a liability when selling a home. Anyone who says otherwise hasn't placed such a home on the market and tried to sell it. They don't add 1:1 value to a home--they aren't even considered part of the home. They are personal property and finding an appraiser who is going to give anything for them and an underwriter who is willing to make sense of them are only part of the problem. Underwriters (controlling the loan) don't want a liability like that and they don't want to figure them out, either. Remember, appraisers and underwriters are risk-averse and anything that is difficult to analyze is going to create an issue for the lender and ultimately the buyer.

I was able to show all the paperwork and all the documents showing the system was paid outright. That helped in clawing back *some* value but we only managed to get about half of it. Most of the battle was "proving" to any potential buyers we owned it, the benefits of owning over leasing, and all the convo that is going on in this thread. In an area more populated with rooftop solar the situation might have been easier but the bottom line was no one wanted to pay extra for anything compared to a similar home without any of the extra. All remodeling, adding, and improving did to our home's value was make it stand out at the top of the list. The price we listed it at, however, was almost entirely driven by sq ft and comps. Condition and solar had a few thousand value add here and there, but compared to the cost of housing in California they were more accurately regarded as rounding errors rather than driving value and price. Solar seems to be like a pool in some regards: requiring a specific buyer to be interested, the buyer is likely to be more savvy about that particular feature, and is likely to leverage the fact that other buyers either won't care about or flat out won't want that particular feature and leverage those factors against you in negotiation.

Anyway, I probably have a lot more to say about this but the bottom line for us was that we aren't planning on doing solar at our new home because of that experience. We also got rid of our eGolf for much of the same reason. Costs don't correlate very well with prices. Cost for all of this is going down while pricing for consumers is going up. It makes it more difficult to see how this fleshes out with all the incentives propping up these pricing structures.

Tin Man said:

If you think homeowners will flock to add $40K (after taxpayer subsidy) to their house for a small amount of savings on electricity if any (accounting for maintenance, interest and finance fees etc.), you might be a bit optimistic.

Click to expand...

That system produces 38,000kWh/yr, saving >$300/mo. It's a big system (22.77kW). The one before that was $13k. Much smaller. The average size 6 years ago was ~5kW but that varies A LOT by region. The average that I've installed is ~12kW. Regardless of size they'll all pay for themselves in <12 years because math. If you roll it into your mortgage you're ahead on day 1 because your electric bill goes down by more than your mortgage goes up.... you start saving money on day 1.

bizzle said:

The utils started charging for that over and above the customary montly surcharge.

Solar panels are a liability when selling a home. Anyone who says otherwise hasn't placed such a home on the market and tried to sell it. They don't add 1:1 value to a home--they aren't even considered part of the home. They are personal property and finding an appraiser who is going to give anything for them and an underwriter who is willing to make sense of them are only part of the problem.

Click to expand...

There are pockets around the country where utilities have twisted the rules to make solar unfeasible. My utility had been doing that starting in 2011. They were charging ~$0.036/kWh PRODUCED. So I was paying my utility ~$40/mo not for the energy I was taking from them but for the energy I was producing. I helped fight back and we won. That fee is gone.

Realtors and Appraisers can be problematic but that's why Sandia Labs and the API got together to make an accredited system for determining the value of solar. It's a metric completely based on the value of the PRODUCTION. I had my home in WA state refinanced a few years ago and the appraiser was unwilling to budge because there were no 'comparables'. I filled out the form and she had no choice but to add the value. It's an accredited method of appraisal.

How long ago did you buy your first solar system? In the last 10 years costs have come down >50%.

We installed our system in summer 2016 and sold the home April 2018.

I suspect the fact that it was a refi instead of a sale helped you out somewhat in regards to your appraiser's willingness to adjust the appraisal. I appreciate the links you're providing but I can't find one describing API and who that organization has authority over. Also, even though rubrics exist, appraisals are subjective so there is no way to force an appraiser to give value, or certain value, to any one thing in a home sale even if there is an agency with authority over that person.

In an arms-length sale things become even more complicated because the underwriters are involved. They can outright reject an appraisal even if you manage to get the appraiser to play ball.

All of this ignores market reality. Even if I manage to get all this value realized in the appraisal, getting/finding a buyer to agree to the *price* (assuming we agree that value/cost and price are different things--I would argue they are not necessarily related) of the system is a completely different matter. Enclosing my back patio would have increased sq ft with a subsequent huge impact on value (and price) compared to a PV system on the same house, same condition directly across the street. As a savvy investor, it doesn't make sense for me to install PV rather than simply increasing livable sq feet. As a buyer, it's going to be difficult to buy a smaller home with a PV system for the same price as a remodeled one that is larger without a PV system. Among home buyers, sellers, real estate agents, appraisers, and lenders, everyone understands the remodeled floor plan while few understand the PV system.

All this isn't to say that you're wrong, but rather to point out it's much more complex than simply adding up what one spent or adding up how much a system produces to arrive at an accurate valuation of it. Rooftop PV is a risky expenditure right now and underwriters, along with appraisers who function for underwriters' benefit, are notoriously risk-averse. The power companies are working as hard as they can to make it more difficult for homeowners to realize the full value of their PV systems currently.

bizzle said:

I appreciate the links you're providing but I can't find one describing API and who that organization has authority over.

Click to expand...

The API is the largest accreditation organization for real estate appraisers in the US. So the metric they get from PV Value is valid and their appraisal would also be valid with the underwriters. It would be somewhat like having a gold plated toilet. Regardless of the perceived value of having a toilet made of gold there is also the hard value of 20oz of gold. PV Value works in a similar way. It ignores any perceived value and looks and the hard value of it's predicted production over 12 years.

But you are correct that market price can be independent of appraisal, however this works in both directions. Depending on the market and how educated the realtor is homes with solar generally sell faster and sometimes for more (Even beyond the PV value metric) compared to homes without solar.

Having bought and sold a number of private homes, including a home office, bizzle has the more realistic view. I hear subprime mortgages are coming back

Tin Man said:

Having bought and sold a number of private homes, including a home office, bizzle has the more realistic view. I hear subprime mortgages are coming back

Click to expand...

For Americans perhaps. They can't grasp that paying $100/mo more to the bank and $120/mo less to the utility is a good thing. Math is hard; It IS a good thing BTW. $120 - $100 = $20 more in your pocket every month...

nwdiver said:

The API is the largest accreditation organization for real estate appraisers in the US. So the metric they get from PV Value is valid and their appraisal would also be valid with the underwriters. It would be somewhat like having a gold plated toilet. Regardless of the perceived value of having a toilet made of gold there is also the hard value of 20oz of gold. PV Value works in a similar way. It ignores any perceived value and looks and the hard value of it's predicted production over 12 years.

Click to expand...

The worksheet's validity is not an issue. That means it's actually measuring what it says it is trying to measure, which is good but not required or enough. Appraisers don't have to use it, even if they are accredited by that organization. There is no recourse if an appraiser refuses your request to value your PV system according to it. The underwriter might accept it, but that would depend on their personal willingness or policy. An underwriter doesn't have to accept it and there is nothing you can do if one does not as far as I know.

I agree that tool provides a standardized way of assessing value of a PV system. The concern is that I have not found anyone using that standard even though I have been in several real estate transactions within the past decade. Keep in mind that in a home sale the offer comes in first, then the appraiser ensures the property reaches value of the loan. An appraiser isn't going to appraise a property for more than the offer so the buyer is the driver in this scenario.

nwdiver said:

For Americans perhaps. They can't grasp that paying $100/mo more to the bank and $120/mo less to the utility is a good thing. Math is hard; It IS a good thing BTW. $120 - $100 = $20 more in your pocket every month...

Click to expand...

Our utility companies claw much of that savings back in fees and odd calculations.

bizzle said:

Appraisers don't have to use it, even if they are accredited by that organization. There is no recourse if an appraiser refuses your request to value your PV system according to it.

Click to expand...

From what I can tell they actually do have to use it. Mine certainly didn't want to but used it anyway. I think they can lose their accreditation. There are rules and standards they have to follow... that's part of the point of having a national association. PV Value has been accepted as part of those rules and standards; Rules lose their meaning if they're just ignored.

bizzle said:

Our utility companies claw much of that savings back in fees and odd calculations.

Click to expand...

As I said.....

nwdiver said:

There are pockets around the country where utilities have twisted the rules to make solar unfeasible. My utility had been doing that starting in 2011. They were charging ~$0.036/kWh PRODUCED. So I was paying my utility ~$40/mo not for the energy I was taking from them but for the energy I was producing. I helped fight back and we won. That fee is gone.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't know so I can't speak to that, but the test would be to find out what would have happened if your appraiser didn't use it. There might be a number or a grievance process, but none of that would apply in a typical home sale. The underwriter is going to accept the appraisal as-is while your appeals process through whatever channels they can. If you want to conclude the sale you'll have to sit down at the table with the buyer to work something out at that point.

Buying/selling home values are completely subjective. There's no way to prove an appraiser refused to use the valuation sheet because they could simply use it, then reduce values elsewhere to compensate. That said, this only applies to those appraisers. It wouldn't be useful if an appraiser isn't part of that association (US regulations prevent people from cherry-picking appraisers. It's a blind assignment process.) and doesn't apply at all to underwriters. Even with a higher value on the appraisal, an underwriter can still reject it. PV systems are depreciating assets; personal property. They are considered a liability to lenders and lenders aren't motivated to risk capital when they don't have to.

bizzle said:

I wouldn't know so I can't speak to that, but the test would be to find out what would have happened if your appraiser didn't use it.

Click to expand...

I can tell you that if she didn't have to use it she almost certainly would not have. I was more than a little irritated when her initial appraisal had the 8.4kW system adding $0 to the value of the house. Words were exchanged. She wasn't pleased when I did my research and found PV Value.

Regardless.... if it's accepted by the API.... why on earth would they not use it? That would be no different than using 2500 sq ft in their calc when the house is 3200. Or claiming it has 2 bedrooms when it has 3. They can't just do what they 'feel' like doing... there's a reason appraisers are certified. And the underwriters are going to take the appraisers value.... that's WHY they pay appraisers.....

The depreciation or degradation of PV systems is part of PV value and why it's based on PRODUCTION not the system itself. If it's going to produce $15k over the next 12 years that's $15k.... $15k is $15k......

The point I'm having difficulty relaying to you is that there is no national standard in the United States. You are pointing to *one* accreditation association. Appraisers don't have to belong to that association, they don't even have to be accredited by anyone. Appraisers are licensed professionals in this country. Being accredited is a benefit of that association and members also get access to things like training sessions and tools like that one you found to help/guide them in evaluations. I don't know if they are binding to API members and you're only able to speculate they are, but they are not binding on other people regardless. Neither one of us know why that appraiser chose to go along with using it, but again this is a red herring. Refis are different than home sales. New borrowers are riskier than someone who has equity in their primary home.

You can't compare the estimation of value of a piece of personal property attached to your home to that of a room or square footage. The latter two are objective facts (as is the "fact" that the PV system will produce some *estimated* value of electricity over the next 12 years). The value ascribed to those facts is a different matter entirely. How those basic facts like square footage and rooms are translated into value is not an exact science. The appraisals I've seen have three columns with different valuation methodologies. The appraiser has to provide a reasoning for why one methodology was chosen over the others.

Underwriters have a fiduciary responsibility to the institution they work for and will not simply accept an appraisal. It might seem like that but there is a lot more analysis that goes into it than that. The description you gave is atypical in a US home sale. Normally you would not have access to the appraiser, would not be able to see the appraisal and contest it before it was submitted to underwriting, and underwriters don't even have to release it if they don't want to.

bizzle said:

Underwriters have a fiduciary responsibility to the institution they work for and will not simply accept an appraisal.

Click to expand...

And getting licensed appraiser to assess the value of a property fulfills that responsibility. There IS a standard for assessing the value of a PV system that is accepted by the largest appraisal association in the county....

nwdiver will never admit to flaws in the system. He will only argue.

The home buyer has recourse in paying an independent appraiser for a second opinion. This worked for me.

I don't know what else a seller has other than the realtor who may try to value the property with "used" solar panels more. This is an uphill battle it seems.

nwdiver said:

For Americans perhaps. They can't grasp that paying $100/mo more to the bank and $120/mo less to the utility is a good thing. Math is hard; It IS a good thing BTW. $120 - $100 = $20 more in your pocket every month...

Click to expand...

This is a condescending view but I happen to think it is generally true. Wishing more people would do good Math including those that are pushing an agenda. Its very good strategy to know what your idealogical opponents are thinking even if you don't agree with them.

Meanwhile, here's a writeup on an electric vehicle that I purchased and have been riding around quite a bit now that spring has come: https://bhtooefr.org/blog/2019/05/15/smol-wheels-big-fun/



...it's just a much smaller and slower electric vehicle than the ones we usually talk about.

I ride those quite often around town during the lunch hour, they're pretty fun. I noticed that Bird recently switched to Segway in our city, I'm curious about the reason behind that.