Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Transportation

EVs Made Up 10% of All New Cars Sold Last Year (businessinsider.com) 137

According to the Wall Street Journal, citing preliminary research from LMC Automotive and EV-Volumes.com, there were 7.8 million electric vehicles sold worldwide in 2022, a 68% increase from 2021. "The uptick helped electric vehicles achieve a roughly 10% global market share in the automotive industry for the first time," reports Insider. From the report: While 10% is only a modest share of the total market, the industry is growing faster than some had predicted. In 2021, for instance, the International Energy Agency projected that it would take until 2030 for the EV industry to reach between 7% and 12% of global auto sales. Europe and China have led the way, where electric vehicles already account for 11% and 19% of total car sales respectively, WSJ reported, citing data from LMC Automotive.

CBInsights Auto and Mobility Trends estimated that its global market share could reach 22% by 2030. BloombergNEF projected the industry's market share could reach nearly 40% by the end of the decade. The Biden Administration, which included a $7,500 tax credit for purchasing an electric vehicle in last year's Inflation Reduction Act, is aiming for half of US vehicle sales to be electric by 2030.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

EVs Made Up 10% of All New Cars Sold Last Year

Comments Filter:
  • Wyoming (Score:3, Funny)

    by ArchieBunker ( 132337 ) on Monday January 16, 2023 @06:08PM (#63214406)

    Wyoming wants to phase out electric cars? Somebody better tell them that EVs aren’t even phased in yet.

    • The one thing I always remember whenever Wyoming is mentioned is the bumper sticker the dude that moved from Wyoming into Iowa had back when I was farming. It said, and I quote this directly because I'm not making this shit up, "Wyoming. Where men are men and sheep are cautious." And yeah, I'd believe he put that on there with pride after being around him a bit.

    • The dimensions of stupid there are uncountable.

      After so many years of telling us that EVs are powered only by burning fossil fuels somewhere. "The Long Tailpipe," remember?

      So if they really believed that, their stupid motion is actually hurting the industry they are claiming they want to protect.

      • How many grids do you think are still fossil fuel only? Maybe leave the 20th Century and join us in the 21st century
        • I have no idea. But whatever percentage belongs to the fossil fuel industry, an increase in demand can only help them sell more. Even if their market share shrinks.

          This kind of logic does not apply only to the 21st century.

    • Wyoming is just making a political gesture, they're not really serious about it nor is it a relevant to their governance.

  • Quoting:

    "The Biden Administration, which included a $7,500 tax credit for purchasing an electric vehicle in last year's Inflation Reduction Act..."

    How does giving away taxes reduce inflation?

    I think the Biden Administration has done many good things, but often there is poor explanation or no explanation.
    • by godrik ( 1287354 )

      > How does giving away taxes reduce inflation?

      Isn't it obvious?

      More people that can afford EV get EV, we transition faster to a more long term economical mode of transportation. The overall cost of transportation goes down long term.

      With more EV on the roads, there are fewer cars at the gas pump. So let buying pressure on gas, reduces the cost of gas for other usages. Gas is a primary contributor to prices.

      • The subsidy doesn't increase EV sales because EVs are already being sold as fast as they can be manufactured.

        There are waiting lists to buy an EV.

        • The subsidies for EVs and partial EVs are temporary. When a new model is out then only the first X units sold get the tax deduction. And this doesn't mean by model year. The intent is to spur initial sales and encourage manufacturers that there can be a real market for it. At this point, they do add a few more models but I think this rebate has been getting rarer and perhaps time to phase out now that EVs aren't experimental.

      • Iâ(TM)m still waiting for the government to get greedy and start taxing EVs. Once the ratio increases, and the government starts to realize a loss of revenue from taxes on gasoline, expect much higher taxes on your electric vehicle at the state and federal levels. At the state level they will probably just text the shit out of you on annual registration time. The federal level is going to have to get more creative, possibly when you file your income tax return. At that point any financial savings wil
        • Nah. They'll sneak in an "at the plug" tax for EVs and if you're caught plugging into a non-tracked outlet you'll be fined into oblivion. Politicians know one thing well, parity. "People pay tax at the pump, they should pay tax at the outlet," will fall out of some politico's ass before long, and it'll be turned into law.

        • I don't call that greed. I call that making up for the loss of taxes on gasoline.
        • by flink ( 18449 )

          So what. I don't mind paying to maintain the roads we all use. I already pay an excise tax. Seems like the easiest thing to do would be to would be to read the odometer when you bring the car in for annual inspection and send it into the DMV. DMV could tack on a mileage based tax onto the registration renewal fee.

          • by e3m4n ( 947977 )
            thats not universal. I have never had to bring a vehicle in for any sort of inspection. But right now, an EV cost a fuckton more than a gasoline equivelant (i said equivalent not some bare bones EV model). Right now a gasoline car can easily do an 800 mile trip in less than 12hrs. To get anywhere close to that in an EV your talking about a $50k investment. A quick search on nissan shows 300mi range on an 87kwh battery with 40min quick charge to get to 80%. So 300mi on the first charge, about 250mi on the n
            • thats not universal. I have never had to bring a vehicle in for any sort of inspection.

              Most states in the USA have some kind of inspection requirement, including the most populous states, so most drivers in the USA do as well. States without any such requirements could use self-reporting with random checks (some random checks will occur when vehicles need repairs anyway) to fulfill the same function.

              But right now, an EV cost a fuckton more than a gasoline equivelant

              Up front, yes. But most new vehicle purchases are financed, and if the TCO is going to be lower then you should be able to get a larger loan.

              If the government comes back and decides to charge you $125/mo in taxes/fees to make up for lost revenue, your cash offset that helped cover the higher payments of a more expensive car just flew out the window.

              Or they just apply those fees to all vehicles, and it i

    • How does giving away taxes reduce inflation?

      The "inflation" is just some producers using the whole situation to raise prices. Giving out some money helps offset the impact for the lower income people. EV tax credit already existed so I guess they just bundled it there.

      • Inflation is just keeping up with the Jones's. If all my competitors raise prices then I'd be a feel to stick with 2020 prices; especially when my own costs are going up. So I'd sell at $1 less than the competition, otherwise I'd be cheating myself. Now a few industries out there definitely take big advantage of this; oil and gas for instance, a shortage worldwide means that even in countries without shortages they'll rack up the prices, because the can, and if the market goes down well at least they stil

    • by timeOday ( 582209 ) on Monday January 16, 2023 @07:47PM (#63214736)
      So far none of the replies to your question is serious, so here you go: energy costs are a huge component of price instability including the recent round of inflation.

      Energy prices impact not only how much you pay at the pump, but have a downstream effect on everything that is manufactured, transported, heated, or powered - in other words, everything. So, weaning ourselves off fossil fuel is a way to prevent future price spikes (inflation).

      It's kind of frustrating how nobody learns this lesson or makes this connection even though we have been bent over a barrel either by the middle east or Russia at least once per decade for the last 50 years. Then things get better for a while and within a month everybody forgets until next time.

      • Yup. Local markets are relatively rare. You want to buy a carrot at the grocery store then that means several trucks were involved in getting it there, and their gas prices have gone up. If you want shoes from Asia then that transportation price is even higher, and if you want to get US made shoes instead (ha!) then they'll likely be raising prices anyway just to keep up with the competition.

    • Almost every XYZ Act includes a ton of extra crap. It's all a part of congress and how they do things. People keep asking to add amendments to bills and not enough to refuse to allow it, and then it's part of a bill that people do want to pass even though they don't like all of it. There's no real way around this without congress voluntarily deciding not to do so.

      Remember, most members don't actually read the bills, they get a summary from their aides. Much of this sort of voting happens when not everyo

    • by DarkOx ( 621550 )

      It does not help at all. In fact the cost of most EVs went UP just about equal to the amount of the tax credit. There is a cap, and so some luxury models saw like Tesla-S saw price cuts.

      Basically it was a 'tax cut for the wealthy'

      If you were already buying something that the vast majority of American's considered affordable, you get a discount, if you just wanted a basic commuter car you got nadda in terms of real savings, but the illusion of savings on the itemized bill (so you feel your vote is appropriat

    • by flink ( 18449 )

      How does giving away taxes reduce inflation?

      I think the Biden Administration has done many good things, but often there is poor explanation or no explanation.

      None of the current inflation we are seeing is due to an oversupply of cash in the economy. It's due to the Ukraine war destabilizing energy and food markets, supply chain issues caused by the pandemic, and companies using the above two as a cover to price gouge. So giving people a tax break and maybe printing some more money to cover it won't really add to the inflation when there is already an under-supply of electric vehicles.

      So the tax incentive won't help, but it wont really hurt either. I object to

  • by suss ( 158993 )

    People buy more of a thing, when they get a substantial government subsidy (other people's tax money) with it.

    Now that that's going away, Tesla is suddenly lowering their prices. Who'd have expected.

    • The summary explicitly notes that there is a new tax break under the IRA. So your central claim seems to be based on an incorrect claim.
    • by crow ( 16139 )

      People buy more of a thing when it's better than the alternatives. Sales of EVs have been going up globally regardless of whether subsidies and incentives have increased or decreased (though faster with incentives, of course). In the US, Tesla hasn't qualified for tax credits for several years, but now with the Inflation Reduction Act, they do. Some of the price reductions may be to keep at least some models below the price threshold to qualify for the credits.

      The current USA credits are complex and a bi

    • Try harder, shill. Tesla past the 200,000 units sold milestone in January of 2020. Tesla buyers haven't been eligible for tax credits over the last 2 years. The new law brings those credits back to Tesla starting this month, so you're claim that Tesla is lowering their price because of the loss of those credits is completely ass backwards. They're lowering their price because they checked it up at least twice during the pandemic and that negatively impacted sales. Simple supply and demand driving price.

      • Also the fact that they have no doubt gotten more efficent at manufacturing, costs for battery packs are probably down and there is real impending competition coming and Tesla wants to maintain command of that upper-mid market area, espcially at a time when some manufacturers are still low on new car demand.

      • by suss ( 158993 )

        Shill? Like your username? Seriously, what is wrong with you? Do you have a stake in this? Normal people don't react this way. Do you hang out on bad forums that you ended up this way?

      • They're lowering their price because the continuing trend of battery fires, self-driving features killing people, and Elon making a stupid fucking ass of himself is making people not trust them.

        It doesn't matter if ICEVs burst into flames more than EVs, which they do. What matters is people's perception of the results. It matters even less if human drivers cause less road fatalities than self-driving, again only the perceptions matter.

        Now that Tesla has real competition, Elon is an idiot to keep letting us

    • by ruddk ( 5153113 )

      It is so much more comfortable to ride. I have several colleagues at work who drove hybrids, they liked the silence and smoothness of the electric part so much that they switched to all electric. If you are not a petrol head and you just need a car to commute to work, it is better with electric. We have plenty of 11kW AC EVSEs here so even people living in apartments can charge every day at very competitive prices(the company doesn't add profit to the kW price, just sales tax so it is really cheap).

    • by Rei ( 128717 )

      You have it precisely backwards. Teslas didn't qualify for subsidies, now (some of them) will. It was (many of) Tesla's competitors that previously qualified for subsidies; now (some of them) won't.

    • That happens in a lot of areas of industry too. Or something similar for example, state gambling income they always say itâ(TM)s to subsidize education, and yet we constantly need more forms of gambling, and I find that amount of the government contributes to education keep shrinking. Pretty soon weâ(TM)re gonna be beholden to whatever the gambling industry wants because if they pull out, we lose all of our funding
  • by AlanObject ( 3603453 ) on Monday January 16, 2023 @06:23PM (#63214470)

    If it were not Elon Musk and what he and Tesla pulled off I can guarantee you that in 2023 today we would still be getting position statements from all the major auto makers (other than maybe Nissan) that "battery EVs are not economically viable at the current level of technology."

    Now here they are, trying to catch up.

    • by Tony Isaac ( 1301187 ) on Monday January 16, 2023 @07:01PM (#63214558) Homepage

      Musk certainly sped up the adoption of EVs by making them "cool." But as with many technology trends, it would have happened with or without him.

      We give Steve Jobs credit for making the smartphone popular, but he was by no means the first. When the Wright brothers "invented" the plane, others were working on the same invention around the world. With each big invention, some flamboyant salesperson makes it popular. Musk simply saw the fertile ground and planted the seed.

      So I half agree with you. He sped up adoption, but it would have happened anyway.

      • You can say that about almost anything and not just technology. Our understanding of evolution would be exactly the same today with or without Darwin. Same with Einstein and relativity. The US today would be an independent nation without the founding fathers or the revolutionary war (just as former colonies Canada, Australia, and India are). Do you think the USA would still be practicing slavery in 2023 had Abraham Lincoln never been born? No.
        • Inspired by Otto Lilienthal's pioneering work, the Wrights started with very little. What is fascinating about the story is how late it was, Huge battle ships were being built by 1900. And how little interest the world had in a flying machine! The first article was in a Bee Keepers journal! The US Army could see no use, and for one year (1906?) the wrights stopped flying at all.

          As to electric cars, the vast majority are cheap cars in China, nothing to do with Tesla.

        • Do you think the USA would still be practicing slavery in 2023 had Abraham Lincoln never been born? No.

          The USA is still practicing slavery today. It is literally in the constitution. Ignorance like yours is why it persists.

          • Do you think the USA would still be practicing slavery in 2023 had Abraham Lincoln never been born? No.

            The USA is still practicing slavery today. It is literally in the constitution. Ignorance like yours is why it persists.

            Ignorance indeed. Perhaps you should look up the meaning of the word "practicing", and study up on the Amendments while you're at it.

            • Ignorance indeed. Perhaps you should look up the meaning of the word "practicing"

              The USA is enslaving prisoners right now and you are cheering for it. You are pro-slavery.

      • A far better example of this would be Edison. He did not invent the light bulb nor even improve it to the point that it was usable but he was so good a salesman and liar that most people think he did.
    • So you don't think the post-dieselgate settlements committing the 7th largest global car manufacturer to EVs had anything to do with it?
      • Nope. Electrify America is intentionally hobbled horrible charging network. Designed to catch anyone who bought EV and frustrate them and make them regret buying EV.

        Roughly the same amount of investment, to supercharger network. And see the difference.

    • Automakers in Europe were making EVs before Tesla and had announced vehicles at the same time as Telsa. What Tesla did is to bring the high tech startup motto "move fast, break things" and rely heavily on marketing to create expectations and make it sound cooler than other manufacturer's offers. It also sort of channelled patriotic feelings among the US nerd community.

      • by Rei ( 128717 )

        What specific commercial for-sale EVs during the Roadster era from "European Automakers" (I assume we're not talking no-name garage startups that nobody has ever heard of because they went nowhere) are you talking about?

        • I guess it depends on what years the roadster era is... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

          • by Rei ( 128717 )

            Roadster was released in 2008. Your first entry is 2010.

            • During the first two months of production, Tesla produced a total of three Roadsters (P3/VINF002, P4/VINF004, and P5/VINF005). Production car # 1 (P1) and P2 were built prior to the start of regular series production, which began March 17, 2008.[73]
              By September 10, 2008, Tesla had delivered 27 of the cars to customers.

              Again, it depends on what you call an era....

              • Some of my copy paste was missing.

                Tesla announced on January 13, 2010, that it had produced its 1,000th Roadster.

    • How much did Musk do? He gets labelled an entrepreneur, but really it's his later stuff that's new and innovative. He came in to an existing Tesla, not as a CTO or a mastermind of design, but as a CEO. I know there are those thinking he invented the EV, but it's false, or that he is actually involved in the design an engineering, but that's clearly not true either.

      Tesla wasn't the first either. It did a good thing by taking a big risk, including a good idea to start with highly overpriced sports cars for

      • by AlanObject ( 3603453 ) on Monday January 16, 2023 @10:51PM (#63215194)

        I know there are those thinking he invented the EV, but it's false,

        Literally nobody who is mentally functioning thinks this.

        or that he is actually involved in the design an engineering, but that's clearly not true either.

        He managed and funded the process, set the objective, oversaw it, and his engineering and design input is strongly reflected in the end result. That is very much involved. What is chronically underappreciated, however, is the bulk of the engineering work that was done (with Musk sleeping at the factory) was on the factories for the cars, not the cars themselves. Musk's opinion is that is 95% of the job, and the remaining 5% is actually designing the car. There is a lot to back that up.

        Much of a Tesla today is fluff that's not needed. It wants to be a super car, not an everyday commuter vehicle. This slightly backfires as it's set up a mindset in many that EVs are extremely expensive. Much better off with a Bolt or Leaf as the generic standard for an EV than for Tesla.

        The Bolt and Leaf are fine cars, but the Model Y is on track to be the highest volume car of all car models. Not just of EVs but of all cars. In some regions it has already achieved this. They sell very well in China even though BYD is a powerhouse there. Your opinion of "fluff that's not needed" simply isn't backed up by any market data anywhere.

        • What is chronically underappreciated, however, is the bulk of the engineering work that was done (with Musk sleeping at the factory) was on the factories for the cars, not the cars themselves. Musk's opinion is that is 95% of the job, and the remaining 5% is actually designing the car.

          Okay, then Elon is 95% fuckup, because his design for the factories didn't pan out and they had to significantly change the assembly plants [iqsdirectory.com], causing a massive backlog and costing a huge pile of money. Tesla invented 0% of the manufacturing technology for the chassis, that was all bought not built. The entrenched automakers actually invent new manufacturing technologies (like BMW did for the i3) but Tesla only uses other people's. The things they have actually invented have been their battery pack layout whi

          • The technical stuff you're giving him credit for was botched.

            Musk posted a tweet where he called himself an idiot over his mistakes in bringing the Model 3 line up. But he did learn from his mistakes and as a result the Fremont factory is rated the #1 most efficient factory in North America [californiaglobe.com].

            As for innovations in both manufacturing and design, I'll take Sandy Munro's [youtube.com] assessments, where is had consistently over the years have torn down cars and come up amazed with what Tesla has achieved.

            To you all this is apparently a failure. Whatever.

      • How much did Musk do? He gets labelled an entrepreneur, but really it's his later stuff that's new and innovative. He came in to an existing Tesla, not as a CTO or a mastermind of design, but as a CEO. I know there are those thinking he invented the EV, but it's false, or that he is actually involved in the design an engineering, but that's clearly not true either.

        Entrepreneur, manager, scientist, engineer, and designer are all different jobs. They can overlap, but you don't need to do all of them.

        Musk is an amazing entrepreneur, an... effective manager (but I'd hate to work for him), and seems to be a good engineer (but not nearly as good as he thinks he is).

        He's been going further and further off the rails ever since he started trying to make a self-driving car. But on the topic of EVs, he really did a fantastic job of popularizing them and scaring the rest of the

      • Tesla has never done any marketing. Also, Musk bought in to Tesla as majority shareholder within a year of its founding and has led it as CEO since shortly afterwards. Yes, technically it existed before he got there but everything worthwhile has happened under his tenure.
        • Tesla has never done any marketing.

          Advertising != Marketing, and you apparently do not know the difference.

      • by Rei ( 128717 ) on Tuesday January 17, 2023 @05:56AM (#63215826) Homepage

        He came in to an existing Tesla...

        The Tesla he "came into" was a shell company that had no technology of its own, was working on the same project he already was (just with an Elise rather than a Noble, but both based on sports car conversions with ACP tech), and didn't even have the rights to its own name.

        And FYI, Eberhard was himself independently wealthy. Yet unlike Musk, refused to put hardly any of his own money into the company. Then ran it into the ground while lying to the board (telling them things were nearly done that weren't and that the cars cost half as much to produce as he knew they actually did), and when exposed, even the board member he personally appointed voted to boot him.

        Musk, for his part, kept refusing the CEO role (as he was busy with SpaceX) until there was basically nobody else left who would take it. He was the 4th CEO.

        Tesla's early history was a dumpster fire. It really had two saviors: Musk and Daimler. (Daimler deserves more credit for rescuing the company... they did so because Tesla had already made a conversion Smart that they could sell as a compliance car)

        Note: I say all this not to support Musk's role in Tesla today. Often the sort of thing that make a good early management team for a company is very different than what a mature company needs.

    • by Rei ( 128717 )

      I'll agree that in general (and I include Musk in this), individuals matter to the course of history.

      That said, that doesn't imply the early management of companies that help bring about or accelerate revolutions is inherently the ideal management for companies later in their history.

  • Viable second car (Score:3, Interesting)

    by spaceyhackerlady ( 462530 ) on Monday January 16, 2023 @06:49PM (#63214530)

    If you can plug one in at home an EV is a fine second car or around-town runabout. As a primary car they are, at best, marginal. As they become more popular they will lose their running cost advantages. The authorities will start to tax them for their electricity usage/lost gas tax revenue and how hard they are on the roads because they're so heavy.

    Since I live in an apartment and have nowhere to plug one in, an EV doesn't work for me and won't any time soon.

    ...laura

    • by godrik ( 1287354 )

      We need for ways to pay for roads and currently we are taxing gas as a proxy. But even when that cost shifts, EVs are still way more economical in the long run.

      For people living in apartments, this could adjust over time. Many places of employment and many grocery stores have charging stations in the parking lots. I have a friend living in a high rise condo and his condo board is considering installing EV chargers in the parking lots.

      There are challenges, but it seems they can be solved over time.

      • Combined with the fact that for at home chargers are actually fairly simple and inexpensive devices (relatively of course, a level 2 charger is still $500-800) and it's a no brainer for new construction and the high end places to install chargers. If not already soon tenants will see have access to an EV charger as a qualify/disqualify on choosing an apartment and the apartments can (at first) use it as an added extra and revenue center.

        Once charging networks are simpler for fee adoption it's pretty much l

        • Ha, our chargers at work have been out for a couple months now. Sort of went downhill later in the pandemic but then ultimately stopped. The reason is not the chargers though, the reason is that when first installed they used 3G modems to their back office, and now they're having difficulty getting 4G replacements.

          I do think that there are too many short sighted engineers and project managers who put all their eggs in one basket in this regard (have run into this issue, someone quickly slaps on a modem wi

    • Yeah, I can't imagine that anyone would think of putting chargers in parking spaces.
    • As a primary car they are, at best, marginal.

      It depends on your definition of 'primary' car. I just bought an EV this year, and I put way more miles (commuting, running kids around town for activities) on it than my wife's gas SUV (works from home). We mostly use the SUV for longer trips, but, I've taken my EV on 300+ mile trips with no problem. I save $200-$300/mo on gas, so it's done far better than just 'marginal'.

      • "I save $200-$300/mo on gas."
        You must have a heck of a commute or you have really good prices on charging.

    • > As they become more popular they will lose their running cost advantages

      Are they suddenly gonna start burning gasoline if too many people buy them? Need oil changes and tuneups? Exhaust systems, ignition systems, timing belts? Oh taxes to replace gas taxes... which are a fraction of the cost of gasoline, so even if EV owners pay the equivalent it's still like a fifth the cost per mile.

      > Since I live in an apartment and have nowhere to plug one in, an EV doesn't work for me and won't any time soon

      Gen

    • Re:Viable second car (Score:5, Interesting)

      by crow ( 16139 ) on Monday January 16, 2023 @07:47PM (#63214738) Homepage Journal

      I have a friend who own an EV and can't charge at home. She has a Model 3 and uses a Supercharger once a week or so. Not much different from getting gas, but it takes a bit more thinking about and a few minutes more.

      As for trips, we took an 8,000-mile trip last summer around the US in our Model 3, and it was great. We made only a few detours due to charging when going off the Interstates, but for the most part, we just didn't think about it and stopped when and where the car told us to. And for the most part, the car was ready to go before we were.

      • We made only a few detours due to charging....and stopped when and where the car told us to.

        Good for you but I think you'll find that most of the time people want to tell their vehicle where to go and when to stop not the other way around. The other issue with EVs is that they don't work well in cold climates since not only does the battery lose a lot of capacity but since the engine does not generate heat you have to drain the battery even more to heat the car.

        • by dasunt ( 249686 )

          Good for you but I think you'll find that most of the time people want to tell their vehicle where to go and when to stop not the other way around.

          For a lot of use cases, even 110V overnight will offset the day's usage. So as long as one has a regular power outlet where they park, it'll work. (It won't work for most apartment dwellers though). Figure about four to five miles per hour of charging at 110V, so a 12 hour overnight charge should do about 48 miles. (And obviously, even if the battery isn't

    • by Ichijo ( 607641 )

      If you can plug one in at home an EV is a fine second car or around-town runabout. As a primary car they are, at best, marginal.

      How so? Because commuting and shopping comprise 95% of how I use a car.

    • by Darinbob ( 1142669 ) on Monday January 16, 2023 @10:17PM (#63215130)

      If you are a commuter, then the commuter vehicle is the _primary_ vehicle, the one that it driven the most. If you need the 500 mile trip for a family vacation, then that's the perfect thing for a rental.

    • There is no reason they canâ(TM)t be a primary car. My e tron GT is my daily driver, and my wife drives a Model X. Admittedly, I plug in at home, but we are perfectly fine taking the family in the X for hundreds or even a thousand km drive. I wish the Tesla had the same charge rate as my Audi (Tesla is a 2018 model) but it doesnâ(TM)t add that much time overall to a trip, and we find it a very relaxing drive.

    • It's the exact opposite for most people. A Mustang Mach-E lists 224 miles on the low end. That's enough for my wife who drives around a school district every day to go to blind student's. That would be enough for me to do most of a weeks driving without charging. It's getting to the point that for the vast majority of people they can use EV's as primary cars. Really all we would need an ICE for is long distance.
    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      I can tell you have never owned an EV. I had an original Nissan Leaf 24kWh as my primary vehicle back in the day, it was fine.

      Most people seem to massively over-estimate distances, by a factor of 2 or more. That said, mid priced EVs are now capable of a realistic 250-300 miles in poor weather, which is 4-5 hours non-stop driving at high speed. After that, a half hour charging session is a welcome break for most people.

    • by Rei ( 128717 ) on Tuesday January 17, 2023 @06:01AM (#63215828) Homepage

      When did you ask your landlord whether they'd let you install a charger if you got an EV?

      I'm going to bet on "never". Most are actually amenable. In some places they're outright legally required to. I'm also going to guess that you never asked your employer either - again, most in practice are amenable.

      It's worth adding that in countries with high EV adoption rates, this issue is self-solving (see Norway for example). If you're a landlord and an increasingly large share of your potential tenants have EVs, you'd be a moron not to install a charger, because otherwise it means you have to charge a lower rent to compete for the share of people who don't. A charger becomes like all other amenities at an apartment, and it's a relatively low cost one for a property owner to install vs. how effectively it attracts tenants in a high-EV-adoption environment.

      • When did you ask your landlord whether they'd let you install a charger if you got an EV?

        I'm going to bet on "never". Most are actually amenable...

        Wrong. I asked, both before I moved in 2019 and where I live now. The answer was a flat no in both cases. My pre-2019 parking was a secure underground parkade. Now I park in a parking lot behind the building.

        New construction here (British Columbia) must have EV infrastructure. There is no legal requirement to retrofit existing buildings.

        ...laura

  • by russbutton ( 675993 ) <russ@@@russbutton...com> on Monday January 16, 2023 @07:16PM (#63214596) Homepage
    People who complain about the federal tax credits for EVs seem to forget that the oil companies are highly subsidized by the federal government with tax credits. Take away the tax credits and your gasoline would cost a more than it does now.

    Take away both the oil tax credits and the EV credits and see how it plays out.

    • So which federal government tax credits do they get that unique to oil companies? Yea they get tax credit for research and development but so do EV car manufacturers.
      • by russbutton ( 675993 ) <russ@@@russbutton...com> on Monday January 16, 2023 @09:26PM (#63215010) Homepage
        I'm a great believer in the free market. I recommend that you simply google the words: "oil company federal subsidies"

        The subsidies that the oil industry gets far, far exceeds anything going to the EV car industry. It's not even close.

        I do believe there's a substantial benefit to moving to a carbon free future. People have it all wrong with the phrase "global warming." The planet's weather is a system, and human activity adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, has added a significant amount of energy to the weather system. More energy means more energetic weather - deeper winters, heat waves, storms and droughts. All of this is causing enormous damage and is far more costly than any subsidies the EV industry is getting.

        40 years ago, Exxon predicted the very climate change we are experiencing now. This is nothing new. It was demonstrated more than 100 years ago that CO2 was a greenhouse gas.

        The impact of climate change will be much, much more than just more storms and storm damage. It will impact the ability to grow food and feed the world's population. If you think the migration from Latin America is a problem today, you're in for a very rude shock. We ain't seen nuthin' yet and it won't be just from Latin America. Bangladesh has nearly 100 million people and 35 million them live at 6 feet above sea level or less. What do you think is going to happen there? Have you seen the flooding in Pakistan?

        With all the wars that happen today, we are seeing millions of refugees around the planet. With climate change, we're going to see 100 million food refugees and more. There are excellent reasons to do everything possible to a carbon neutral and even negative future.

        But back to the EV vs. ICE issue. EV battery tech is developing at an enormous pace and by the end of the decade, will be half the cost it is today. EV cars will cost less than ICE cars to begin with and electrical power will cost less than gasoline. Beyond that, the near complete lack of maintenance for an EV will prove to be a deal breaker over ICE cars. And don't forget that because EVs mostly use regenerative braking, your brakes last at least twice as long. And while we're at it, you're going to find that people will LIKE an EV car more because they're so quiet, smooth and comfortable to ride in. No catalytic converter for people to steal either.

        By the end of the decade EVs will outsell ICE cars because they will just cost less. Were you to remove all subsidies for EV cars, battery manufacture and the oil industry, it would only hasten the change.

        • People have it all wrong with the phrase "global warming." The planet's weather is a system, and human activity adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, has added a significant amount of energy to the weather system. More energy means more energetic weather - deeper winters, heat waves, storms and droughts.

          So what you're saying is that there's an increase in heat energy, which we commonly call warming, and it's affecting the entire globe, which we call global, and therefore global warming is a bad name?

          With all the wars that happen today, we are seeing millions of refugees around the planet.

          Yes, and even if you converted all the ICEVs to EVs tomorrow, it would barely move the needle. Your per mile, per traveler, per person or per anything else emissions would still be vastly higher than if we threw most of them away and put in more rail. It's clear that EVs are less polluting than ICEVs, but it's

          • You write: "So what you're saying is that there's an increase in heat energy, which we commonly call warming, and it's affecting the entire globe, which we call global, and therefore global warming is a bad name?" The term "global warming" suggests to many people just a rise in the temperature they experience. We hear about the planet's temperature as being 2 degrees warmer, so many people think that it just means that the weather will be just that, 2 degrees warmer, and not consider that there is much m
            • The term "global warming" suggests to many people just a rise in the temperature they experience.

              As long as there are assholes able to make a buck on lying to people about the ramifications of climate change, stupid and/or uneducated people will listen to those assholes tell them what they want to hear, and what words you use don't matter even a little bit to them. The people who can be reached can be reached with any reasonable terminology.

          • by flink ( 18449 )

            So what you're saying is that there's an increase in heat energy, which we commonly call warming, and it's affecting the entire globe, which we call global, and therefore global warming is a bad name?

            I think that's why a lot of science communicators have switched to using "anthropogenic climate change" rather than "global warming": While the net amount of heat energy retained by the Earth (and therefore the global average temperature) is going up, many regions might experience a net drop in average temperature as ocean and atmospheric currents shift. Other places might keep the same overall temperature, but experience drastic shifts in local climate - becoming drier, wetter, or just having more extrem

        • EV battery tech is developing at an enormous pace and by the end of the decade, will be half the cost it is today.

          At this point I think the biggest issues with batteries are not so much cost as the time to charge and the loss of capacity in cold climates. The fact that it takes 30 minutes to charge you car even at a high speed charger limits EV use for long distance trips and the reduction in capacity plus the need to use heaters in cold climates limits adoption there too.

          Yes, hopefully they will address these limitations with future battery technology and, if they do, EVs will become immensely popular but until th

          • You write:

            "At this point I think the biggest issues with batteries are not so much cost as the time to charge and the loss of capacity in cold climates. The fact that it takes 30 minutes to charge you car even at a high speed charger limits EV use for long distance trips and the reduction in capacity plus the need to use heaters in cold climates limits adoption there too.

            Yes, hopefully they will address these limitations with future battery technology and, if they do, EVs will become immensely popular b

      • There are some specific carve-outs with accelerated depreciation for oil/gas and minerals, and there some things where expenses actually become credits rather than deductions.

        There used to be oil REITs that took advantage of them for investors, not sure if they are still around.

Technology is dominated by those who manage what they do not understand.

Working...