You’re out of free articles.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Sign In or Create an Account.
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
Welcome to Heatmap
Thank you for registering with Heatmap. Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our lives, a force reshaping our economy, our politics, and our culture. We hope to be your trusted, friendly, and insightful guide to that transformation. Please enjoy your free articles. You can check your profile here .
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Subscribe to get unlimited Access
Hey, you are out of free articles but you are only a few clicks away from full access. Subscribe below and take advantage of our introductory offer.
subscribe to get Unlimited access
Offer for a Heatmap News Unlimited Access subscription; please note that your subscription will renew automatically unless you cancel prior to renewal. Cancellation takes effect at the end of your current billing period. We will let you know in advance of any price changes. Taxes may apply. Offer terms are subject to change.
Create Your Account
Please Enter Your Password
Forgot your password?
Please enter the email address you use for your account so we can send you a link to reset your password:
Those 21-inch rims — and America’s opulent car culture — are doing more harm than good.

The biggest complaint drivers have about electric vehicles is their range. They might be far cleaner, much cheaper to operate and maintain, and not subsidize murderous dictators, but they can typically go only 200-350 miles on a charge (though some expensive models can top 500 miles). And because the U.S. car charging network is still being built out, that can mean having to carefully plan one’s road trip, having to wait in line at a charger, and so on.
So it’s strange that so many EVs are outfitted with snazzy features that badly sap their range. In particular, the fancy low-profile rims that are very common on American EVs knock their range down by as much as 15 percent. It’s just the most obvious example of how America’s addiction to big, fast cars is an unnecessary obstacle to the EV transition.
Jason Fensky explains the physics of the rim problem at Engineering Explained. All else equal, larger diameter wheels are heavier, which means more rotating mass, which means more energy needed to spin them. A larger diameter means more air resistance (particularly when they come with fancy angular decorations), and more resistance still because they typically come with wider tires. Wider tires in turn worsen rolling resistance, eating up still more energy. According to Tesla, moving from 20-inch rims to 18-inch ones on a Model 3 improves range by nearly 15 percent, under typical conditions.
This matters especially for EVs because batteries are considerably less energy-dense than diesel or gasoline. (Their range is as good as it is because electric motors are vastly more efficient than internal combustion engines.) Where you can compensate easily enough for inefficient wheels in a gas-powered car by adding a couple gallons to the fuel tank, additional battery capacity means a huge weight penalty, which itself saps range.
What’s more, low-profile tires have a considerably worse ride quality because there is less rubber to absorb shocks, and with no protruding sidewall, it’s very easy to damage those fancy rims when parking or driving too close to a curb.
The problem is compounded by the EV manufacturer habit of producing absurdly fast models. Zero-to-60 times for today’s crop of electric automobiles are routinely under five seconds and occasionally at three seconds or less. Now, I can’t blame people for enjoying the thrill of explosive electric acceleration — it’s surely one of the reasons EVs have gained market share — but that is preposterous speed. Sixty miles per hour in three seconds is faster than a 2020 Ferrari Portofino, equipped with a twin-turbocharged V8 making 591 horsepower.
We can see all these problems coming together with the Rivian R1T. This pickup truck starts with a dual-motor setup making “only” 600 horsepower and a 0-60 times of 4.5 seconds, with a range of 270 miles on the base battery. You can increase the range to 350 miles with the medium battery, and 400 miles with the biggest one. But if you option the quad-motor drivetrain making 835 horsepower with the medium battery (the only option available at time of writing) range is cut from 350 to 328 miles. And sure enough, if you pick the 21-inch wheels instead of the 20-inch, range is cut again to 303 miles.
Those battery upgrades are also extremely expensive, because they’re so large. The base battery is 105 kilowatt-hours, while the medium is 135 and the large 180 kilowatt-hours, and so the different options will set you back $6,000 and $16,000 respectively. That huge battery is also why the R1T has a base curb weight of over 7,000 pounds.
The R1T has gotten rave reviews because of its ridiculous speed and high build quality. But it is Caligula-esque levels of pointless excess to be driving a large truck around that is faster than a Ferrari sports car. Let’s be real: In ordinary road conditions nobody ever has a legitimate need to hit 60 miles per hour in three seconds. People who even use that capability outside of a race track are in the best case scenario impressing their friends on a highway on-ramp, or else they are breaking the law somehow.
It should also be noted that the heavier a car is, the more dangerous it is to other cars or pedestrians in an accident, because momentum is proportional to mass.
This isn’t the only way to go, of course. Consider the recently discontinued Chevy Bolt, with a 200 horsepower motor and a 63 kilowatt-hour battery. But that smaller drivetrain and battery means its weight comes in under 3,600 pounds, which together with relatively sensible 17-inch wheels (though I’d go even smaller) enables a perfectly respectable range of 259 miles. (That’s just 30 miles short of the Hummer EV, whose battery is 3.4 times larger.) Smaller and cheaper parts also mean the Bolt’s starting price is also $27,500, compared to the R1T’s $74,000 — and because the Bolt requires far less energy and fewer raw materials to produce, it is far better for the climate.
American drivers are simply spoiled by technology. Two hundred horsepower and 266 pound-feet of torque is plenty for 95 percent of the tasks American drivers actually perform with their cars — indeed, more than is strictly necessary. I remember when my family bought a Honda Accord in 2003, with its 160 horsepower four-cylinder engine, and it felt downright zippy.
It will take more than an article to cure America’s addiction to big cars. But right now, EV shoppers can take a simple and easy step to ease their range anxiety: skip the fancy wide rims.
Log in
To continue reading, log in to your account.
Create a Free Account
To unlock more free articles, please create a free account.
Catching up with the American Council on Renewable Energy’s Ray Long.
Today’s chat is with Ray Long, CEO of the American Council on Renewable Energy. We first discussed the odds of permitting reform a year and a half ago, for one of the first Q&As in The Fight. Flash forward and we’re still in the same situation, but now also wrestling with added demand for electricity to power data centers. I wanted to talk again about whether he thought the rise of artificial intelligence would increase the odds of some federal deal happening any time soon. The result: a wide-reaching conversation about the future of the electric grid, the struggles to win community buy-in and the sclerotic nature of the U.S. Congress.
The following conversation was lightly edited for clarity.
Do you think the buildout of our energy grid is entwined with the rise of the nation’s data center buildout?
When you look at what we need over the next four years — 166 gigawatts, 15 times the peak load of New York City — that’s a lot of power to build. Roughly half of that is for data center and AI growth.
There are five things we can build in the next four years at scale to address that collective amount. First, it’s transmission — the transmission buildout will help to get a modern grid to enable power flow to where it’s needed in a much more effective way. That’s the first step because if we just build all that power, the current grid can’t handle it.
Second, there are four supply technologies that can be built: solar, batteries, wind, and natural gas. All four of those technologies, we know there’s enough equipment here in the U.S. available for purchase that we can build at volume. And I’ll say this — natural gas is only about 10% of all those gigawatts because of the availability of turbines from suppliers. You can’t get enough over the next four years. So when I talk about decarbonization, most of what is built to address this issue is zero-carbon resources, renewable energy resources.
If you were to compare the current conversation around data center development to the debate over developing renewable energy in the U.S. — or energy in general — do you see any similarities or differences?
There are always issues with permitting projects. Communities are always going to have concerns about what’s built in their backyards.
What’s new — and your polling shows this — is the level of concern communities have. But here’s the thing: Most of this can be overcome by developers going in, listening to what the needs of the communities are, then responding and through the permitting process addressing those concerns. You can’t do that 100% of the time. But my experience is, when you take that sort of approach, you can overcome a lot of it.
Most of the large data centers are actually doing the things I’m discussing — going in and saying, Look, we want to be grid interconnected because grid connection at the end of the day means the resources we’re bringing to bear are also going to make a stronger grid. Number two, it's investing in power generation sources like the ones I said — and those power sources will be on the grid, so they’ll solve for the increased power demands of a community.
Third, water. They should bring the water solutions. You’re seeing data centers coming in and saying it head on now, that they have closed-loop systems or whatever the solution is. At the end of the day, the communities they’re proposing these in have a real negotiating opportunity to make sure they’re holding the data center developers accountable to the needs of the community.
For a community to say we don’t want it here misses a real opportunity for those communities to get the power they need, the grid they need, and the ability to bring down energy costs.
How is the data center debate affecting permitting reform conversations in Washington, from your perspective?
Permitting reform in the U.S. at the state and federal level has been broken for years. The SunZia transmission project? It took 17 years to permit. Ribbon-cutting is in a week or two and there’s still litigation around it. From a business perspective, it’s just untenable, and it’s a miracle that the project is getting built. Developers need a chance to come in and have their project evaluated. Both the community and the developer should be able to get to a go or no-go in a couple of years on one of these projects.
How is data center growth affecting the permitting reform discussion? It’s a very hot issue right now. Right now I think in part because the data center issue is so huge — because we’ve only got four years to solve for the first really big tranche of power we need and prices across the board for electricity are escalating — this is coming to a head. The data center load is a part of the catalyst to get people talking about it [permitting reform].
Do you expect legislating in Congress on permitting reform this year? Anything beyond more conversation?
My hope is that we get a bill. A few weeks ago someone from the administration was quoted as saying they wanted a framework for a bill by the end of May, and it’s June now. We haven’t seen both sides or the administration coalesce around a final project yet.
We’re in a midterm election cycle. Typically it’s very difficult during these cycles to move bills like this. At the same time, with electricity prices increasing and the need to build more, to fix this, I’m very hopeful something will come together. And look at the Senate — you’ve got Republicans and the Democratic ranking members talking about this. It’s all good signs.
If everyone’s talking about energy and affordability during this election, isn’t that a good thing for action in the next Congress?
I’ll say this: You’re seeing the catalyst for it right now with prices rising, and almost every grid operator around the country has raised concerns about shortages at some point this year or next year. It’ll hopefully be enough to have policymakers do something about it this year.
Plus more of week’s biggest development fights.
1. Ohio — This state might just be the most important flashpoint in the national fight over advanced energy and tech infrastructure.
2. Laramie County, Wyoming — The Cowboy State’s capital city is one of the few to reject a data center moratorium. But tech companies. don’t get your hopes up too high.
3. Los Angeles County, California — Elsewhere, we saw the first city in California vote to ban data centers … once and for all.
4. Charles County, Maryland — This populous county south of D.C. is now out of reach for data center development.
5. Baldwin County, Alabama — There will be a vote at the end of this month on whether to ban solar in the county whose opposition nearly prompted a statewide moratorium on development.
6. Hopkins County, Texas — I have one last update related to a large data center legal fight we’ve been covering closely.
The national AI data center moratorium has momentum.
As I’ve been documenting for months here at The Fight, data center opposition is surging across the country. Our latest Heatmap Pro poll puts some very hard numbers behind that picture. More than 7 in 10 Americans oppose new data center construction near where they live, up from just over 4 in 10 last fall. Part of what’s driving that opposition: More than half of respondents hold data centers largely responsible for rising electricity prices, and nearly half are pessimistic about the effect artificial intelligence will have on their lives.
Here’s yet another data point from our poll that underscores the intensity of the opposition: A majority of Americans now say they support a nationwide halt to new data center construction.
Digging into demographics, support for a national AI data center moratorium breaks predictably based on age and gender — younger people are more likely to back the idea, as are women. Americans are just as likely to back moratoria in their own states as they are a national stop to development, indicating the public relations rot may run deep amongst its critics in the public.
The notion of an AI data center moratorium comes from the political left, specifically Senator Bernie Sanders and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who introduced the first bill to enact such a pause earlier this year. Yet its appeal straddles political lines. Among Democrats, 66% said they’d back a national moratorium, compared to just 19% opposed; in the Republican camp, 55% said they backed the idea, compared to 28% opposed. Independents echoed those views as well, with answers falling neatly in between the two sides (58% support, 21% oppose).
The surge in support for a country-wide stop to new data centers stands in contrast to the more hesitant attitude politicians of all stripes have shown toward the opposition movement. That includes the White House, which until this week embraced a deregulatory approach to fostering AI tech before abruptly changing course this week and seeking early access to new models.
A good example of this political distance exists in Missouri, where Republican Governor Mike Kehoe last month proudly declared that Google was investing $15 billion in a hyperscale data center project in the rural town of New Florence in Montgomery County. After Kehoe’s announcement, the White House’s rapid response media account joined in on celebrating this economic investment, touting the potential for “thousands of construction jobs and hundreds of permanent jobs” from the Google project.
Among the hoi polloi, however, discontent was rife. This was actually the second large data center project in New Florence, and locals in and around this town of fewer than 1,000 residents have been busy suing the county to halt a separate Amazon data center proposed directly across from Google’s project.
Montgomery County is incredibly conservative politically and “has voted red since I can’t even remember,” Sabrina Cope, an organizer with opposition group Preserve Montgomery County, told me over the phone. “They’re turning up their nose at the White House’s support for these kinds of projects. This isn’t an issue solely Democrats or Republicans are upset about.” (The White House did not respond to a request for comment.)
The political mismatch here is also bipartisan.
In New York, state legislators on Thursday passed legislation to enact a one-year pause on new data center permitting. The bill now goes to the desk of New York’s governor, Democrat Kathy Hochul, who has signaled she’s against a broad moratorium. “This is a local decision for municipalities,” Hochul told reporters last month, according to a Politico report. “It’s not a statewide approach, necessarily, but it’s something I’m looking at intensely.”
The scene in the Empire State feels eerily similar to what happened in the Pine Tree State when Maine Democrats sought to enact a moratorium, only to be stymied by a veto from Governor Janet Mills, also a Democrat. Should Hochul spurn the state legislature, it would defy what our polls say is the overwhelming political opinion.
Our poll also found rural voters are almost 10 points more likely than suburban and urban denizens to support a moratorium on new data centers. Knowing how often land use conflicts occur in upstate New York, where voters skew Republican, the yeoman’s calculus in both parties might lead more politicians to support temporarily stopping or stalling data center industry growth.
In Illinois, we’re starting to see policy start to align at least a little more closely with what Democratic voters want. On Friday, Governor J.B. Pritzker announced he would pause data center tax breaks and ask the state legislature to enact a new statute governing the industry’s water and energy use as well as deployment of non-disclosure agreements. If Illinois is a harbinger of things to come in blue states, we’ll see more action like this.