Are Car Companies Sabotaging the Transition to Electric Vehicles? (influencemap.org) 320
The thinktank InfluenceMap produces "data-driven analysis on how business and finance are impacting the climate crisis." Their web site says their newest report documents "How automaker lobbying threatens the global transition to electric vehicles."
This report analyses the climate policy engagement strategies of fifteen of the largest global automakers in seven key regions (Australia, EU, Japan, India, South Korea, UK, US). It shows how even in countries where major climate legislation has recently passed, such as the US and Australia, the ambition of these policies has been weakened due to industry pressure. All fifteen automakers, except Tesla, have actively advocated against at least one policy promoting electric vehicles. Ten of the fifteen showed a particularly high intensity of negative engagement and scored a final grade of D or D+ by InfluenceMap's methodology. Toyota is the lowest-scoring company in this analysis, driving opposition to climate regulations promoting battery electric vehicles in multiple regions, including the US, Australia and UK. Of all automakers analyzed, only Tesla (scoring B) is found to have positive climate advocacy aligned with science-based policy.
CleanTechnica writes that Toyota "led on hybrid vehicles (and still does), so it's actually not surprising that it has been opposed to the next stage of climate-cutting auto evolution — it's clinging on to its lead rather than continuing to innovate for a new era."
More from InfluenceMap: Only three of fifteen companies — Tesla, Mercedes Benz and BMW — are forecast to produce enough electric vehicles by 2030 to meet the International Energy Agency's updated 1.5 degreesC pathway of 66% electric vehicle (battery electric, fuel cell and plug-in hybrids) sales according to InfluenceMap's independent analysis of industry-standard data from February 2024. Current industry forecasts analyzed for this report show automaker production will reach only 53% electric vehicles in 2030. Transport is the third-largest source of greenhouse gas emissions globally, and road transport is failing to decarbonize at anywhere near the rate of many other industries. InfluenceMap's report also finds that Japanese automakers are the least prepared for an electric vehicle transition and are engaging the hardest against it.
"InfluenceMap highlights that these anti-EV efforts in the industry are often coming from industry associations rather than coming directly from automakers, shielding them a bit from inevitable public backlash," writes CleanTechnica.
"Every automaker included in the study except Tesla remains a member of at least two of these groups," InfluenceMap reports, "with most automakers a member of at least five."
Thanks to Slashdot reader Baron_Yam for sharing the news.
CleanTechnica writes that Toyota "led on hybrid vehicles (and still does), so it's actually not surprising that it has been opposed to the next stage of climate-cutting auto evolution — it's clinging on to its lead rather than continuing to innovate for a new era."
More from InfluenceMap: Only three of fifteen companies — Tesla, Mercedes Benz and BMW — are forecast to produce enough electric vehicles by 2030 to meet the International Energy Agency's updated 1.5 degreesC pathway of 66% electric vehicle (battery electric, fuel cell and plug-in hybrids) sales according to InfluenceMap's independent analysis of industry-standard data from February 2024. Current industry forecasts analyzed for this report show automaker production will reach only 53% electric vehicles in 2030. Transport is the third-largest source of greenhouse gas emissions globally, and road transport is failing to decarbonize at anywhere near the rate of many other industries. InfluenceMap's report also finds that Japanese automakers are the least prepared for an electric vehicle transition and are engaging the hardest against it.
"InfluenceMap highlights that these anti-EV efforts in the industry are often coming from industry associations rather than coming directly from automakers, shielding them a bit from inevitable public backlash," writes CleanTechnica.
"Every automaker included in the study except Tesla remains a member of at least two of these groups," InfluenceMap reports, "with most automakers a member of at least five."
Thanks to Slashdot reader Baron_Yam for sharing the news.
How about...no? (Score:5, Insightful)
The car manufacturers will produce whatever they can make money selling. EVs are significantly more expensive than equivalent gasoline-powered cars. If you hold your head just right, and you can charge from home, you can sort of pretend that the savings in fuel costs justifies the higher purchase price.
The higher prices mean that most of the people who are going to buy EVs already have. Everyone else will wait until the prices drop, or until they have no other choice. Anyone who cannot charge at home (renters, condo owners, etc.), will find an EV to be a serious inconvenience, and will never buy an EV until something changes.
Re: How about...no? (Score:3, Insightful)
The saving is just one benefit. Others include:
Quieter, smoother ride
Convenience of charging at home
Better technology
Actually useful remote control features
Free charging at malls and other places
Re: How about...no? (Score:4, Insightful)
Quieter ride. Yes, that is a given. However, hybrids do the same ride if running on the electric motor.
Charging at home -- you are fortunate to have that. Most people can't even get a parking spot, much less a charger they can overnight on.
Better technology? As in 24/7 tracking, and having to have your EV "approve" your trips, having someone hack your keyfob, a hit at 5 kph will total the vehicle because the battery is an integral part of the frame.
Useful remote control features? Newer cars have that.
Free charging? Good luck with that. If the EV charger isn't vandalized or the charger cord cut for the copper in it, you have to find the right app to use, be it EA, Tesla, or some unknown charging place with some piece of crap app that requires every permission under the sun in order for it to allow you to charge. As for free, that is getting less and less.
I don't want an EV:
A PHEV does everything an EV does, but I don't have to put an additional strain on the grid. All that capacity designed for EVs is going for Chinese Bitcoin mining companies. Hell, Texas pays the companies not to mine.
A PHEV works regardless of power failures. Yes, grid down events exist. Just ask people in Houston and Florida. Grid down likely means you are hosed, while gas stations can operate on a generator.
I can use a number of PHEVs, like some Prius models and the upcoming RAMCharger as generators.
Of course, you will say that if you don't buy an EV, better ride that bicycle, as EVs are the only thing available... but that is likely going away. Automakers know people don't want to deal with the long lines and fights outside charging stations when making highway trips, and PHEVs do the same thing as EVs except allow for ease of getting gas.
Keep your EV and smugness. For urban runabouts, they are great, especially if you are privileged enough to have your own charger. For the rest of us proles who can't afford $100,000 for a new car, we will keep our gassers.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
"Most people can't even get a parking spot, much less a charger they can overnight on."
I don't understand how the anti-EV mob think that having a power point near your car is some rare luxury. What the fuck is wrong with you people? Do you all live in log cabins in northern Montana or something? Power near parking spaces is available to the vast majority of the population and has been since your grandfather's time.
"24/7 tracking"
EVs can't do anything ICE vehicles don't already do.
"having to have your EV "ap
Re: How about...no? (Score:5, Informative)
Power near parking spaces is available to the vast majority of the population and has been since your grandfather's time.
Power yes, power you can use for charging your car no, unless you want to illegally tap into the street lamps.
Many people have to park on the street, or in a parking lot that doesn't have charging points at all or most of the parking spaces. For people in this situation, an EV is significantly less convenient because you have to visit a commercial charging station instead of a gas station, which takes longer.
An EV works well if you have your own garage or driveway where you can let the car charge at night.
Re: How about...no? (Score:5, Informative)
Hey, it turns out that there's actual statistics [statista.com] on this.
Private off-street parking with access to power: 48%
Private off-street parking without an outlet: 34%
Private off-street, but don't know power status: 7%
Public on-street parking: 9%
Other: 3%
So I'd probably go with more like "half" having access. Less than 9% would be looking at street lamps. I'm not sure about how easy it'd be to get power to the 41% that park off-street but currently either don't have power(response in phone survey) or don't know. It might be as simple as an extension cord in some cases. Or we might be looking at having to retrofit a parking garage.
Re: (Score:3)
Power yes, power you can use for charging your car no
This isn't rocket surgery. How about someone invents a device whereby they can put a car charging port into the lamp posts so that people can charge. They could use names like "ubitricity" for "ubiquitous electricity" or "chargy" which is cute and lets you use a domain like char.gy. To make life easier registered the domains for you:
https://ubitricity.com/ [ubitricity.com]
https://char.gy/ [char.gy]
Blatant sarcasm aside, this is what on street charging can actually look like in a ci
Re: (Score:3)
How many lamps do you have on your street exactly?!?!
Here I see 1 maybe 2 on each block.
How is that going to service all the cars parked nose to tail the whole block (in some
Re: How about...no? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: How about...no? (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
The owner of your building will install them in the parking lot as existing and potential renters start to demand them. If I have 2 apartment options and one offers me a charger in my spot and one doesn't that may be a deciding factor. Add on that chargers can be a profit center for landlords, you literally get to sell your tenants their "gas".
This stuff all takes time, we didn't have gas stations every 1/2 mile overnight either, or the pipelines that carry oil across the country. We can't judge the infr
Re: How about...no? (Score:4, Informative)
Last figure I saw this weekend listed approx 1 in 3 US households do not have the ability to use or install charging....these people rent houses or apartments with either off street parking, or vast parking lots...or rent houses where the owner wont' allow them to install chargers or reroute power for higher powered chargers.
I'm not sure where you got the idea this was so uncommon.
Not everyone owns a home with off street parking.
Re: (Score:2)
The entire market is far from saturated, in fact it's highly unsaturated.
What is saturated is the $50-80k price range. If you are in that market you have so many options today. It's everyone below that who is in the secondary market who are waiting for comparatively prices options.
Re: How about...no? (Score:3, Insightful)
OK, Earle, you keep driving whatever you want. But at least do try to pull your head out of your ass because sounding as incredibly misinformed as you do is an embarrassment to your mother and sister who, from the sound you, are probably the same person.
Your smugness/inferiority complex is showing.
Re: How about...no? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I think you have it backwards, suburban drivers are in fact the largest market for EV's currently: they are usually more wealthy, own homes with onsite parking and drive the most miles in commuting versus people who live in city centers so they get the largest upsides.
Re: How about...no? (Score:4, Insightful)
Power near parking spaces is available to the vast majority of the population and has been since your grandfather's time.
Define "near"? Is it on the same side of the sidewalk as where the vehicles park, so that you don't have to illegally run a cord across it in order to plug in? It isn't for me, and I don't even live in a dense city. This argument is meaningless. Your other points about EVs and ICEVs being equal in those various regards (like phoning home) are totally valid, but charging continues to be a real problem for real people who actually exist and are not at all hypothetical.
I can not charge at home. I do not have anywhere to charge near work. Charging an EV would be a real and substantial hardship for me. I want to drive an EV. I am tired of working on ICEVs. They are fucking annoying all day. I don't like smelling them, I don't like hearing them, I don't like owning one. But it's my only realistic option, and pretending I don't exist or assuming that I'm lying about it is just being shitty.
Re: (Score:3)
I think his point is that electric cars are not like say, hydrogen cars where the use of them would complete brand new infrastructure entirely different from we have built before.
The idea is more if you live in any populated area in America you are likely no more than 50ft from some form of electrical connection, it's already running everywhere we just need more of it and to install more of the specific devices we need (level 1 and 2 chargers). The only thing stopping more chargers from being installed is
Re: (Score:3)
How may houses per lamp post do you reckon it is?
You need at least one to one unless you want to be coordinating your charging times with your neighbors.
Re: How about...no? (Score:5, Informative)
You are correct in your stuff.
"All that capacity designed for EVs is going for Chinese Bitcoin mining companies. Hell, Texas pays the companies not to mine."
What the actual fuck has to happen to someone that this actually sounds reasonable.
To be fair to Texas, this is actually just a continuation of some very old load balancing deals. I remember reading about it as a teen, far before bitcoin. It was in the context that, if the load demand went high enough, the power company would pay businesses to stop drawing power. There was even a blurb where a local hospital would not only stop drawing - they'd fire their standby generation systems up and provide a bit of power to the grid. Diesel electricity is expensive, but in these situations the hospital kept their generation systems tested as operational and made some money. I'm sure having the hospital drop out and provide, say, around 10% of its normal draw back to the grid made the grid operator's lives easier.
And the operations are definitely not all Chinese, I'm willing to bet that most are domestic. Also, they very much normally pay for the power - they help raise the baseload because they'll shut down when power gets too expensive. Actually being paid is a "once every few years" event.
But you are also absolutely correct that grid operators, in the fiscal sense, love the concept of EVs. More draw = more money. Grid capacity is something that generally scales UP very well. Doubling the capacity of a line doesn't double its cost. EVs are very good at being a sheddable load, so they should act like the bitcoin operations - they stop charging if the power gets expensive (IE high demand low supply), which would make events like the situation being bad enough that they pay places to not consume shouldn't happen as often.
"long lines and fights outside charging stations"
So charge at home you fucking retard. Most EV drivers will tell you that they only use public chargers when they are free, or on the few occasions that they are doing long haul trips.
There were some incidents in like NYC with long lines involving uber drivers - but that was easily explained if you actually read the article: Half the charging stations were broken. The Tesla ones were fine and being used, but there was a 2nd company, where all their chargers were broken. Tesla was scheduled to come in later that year to triple the number of chargers.
There was also a noted LACK of fights over it. I'll note that this could be considered a combination of growing pains and NYC regulations making things worse.
Re: (Score:3)
Just ask people in Houston and Florida. Grid down likely means you are hosed, while gas stations can operate on a generator.
Clearly this is an experience you've never lived through. Gas stations frequently run out of gas even before a storm, because part of storm prepping involves filling up your car(s) and getting fuel for your generator if you own one.
Re: How about...no? (Score:2)
âoeBetter technologyâ thing really grinds my gears. There is nothing in an electric vehicle that requires âoebetter technologyâ and most people overlook the fact that gasoline vehicles are so stuffed with frivolous technology or technology to squeeze every bit of fuel efficiency out of the vehicle. Vehicles today regardless of the mode of propulsion are almost completely drive by wire or have the capability to be.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Well, EVs don't have to be crammed with 10,000 chips to squeeze ever last drop of efficiency out of a tank of gas. EVs by their nature are vastly more efficient, and so the entire drive train is simpler AND better. EVs are overall a superior tech to ICE. Sure, top end ICE vehicles are more elaborate and refined than today's EVs, but ICE vehicles hit the top of their potential decades ago, hence the need for ever more elaborate gimmicks to make them appear better than last year's model.
High end EVs are start
Re: (Score:2)
Also EVs have so much tech in them because the current models were designed into the $50k+ price bracket so the ICE cars they are in the feature bracket with also are loaded with tech.
When the cost of batteries and drivetrain are price competitive with their ICE equivalents we will see EVs with tech stripped out for no other reason than automakers always want a tier of products otherwise they lose business.
People forget how fungible cars are. If Ford only has an EV at $40k and GM has one at $30k most peopl
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Lower maintenance, no oil changes.
I still need to refill the wiper fluid.
Re: How about...no? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Except you can get a Tesla for $40k. A Camry is $30k. Meaning the price difference can be around $10k. Not $25k. And that's raw price, not "loan costs".
Then you figure in the tax rebates, lower fuel costs, and such. Suddenly the Tesla might actually be cheaper.
Re: How about...no? (Score:5, Insightful)
I have a 2002 dodge ram 2500 with an 8ft bed with 75K miles that I drive around 5K miles/year. My other truck is a 2019 Toyota Tacoma with 45K miles that I drive less than 7K miles/year. Both are paid off. The Tacoma has a very quiet and smooth ride. The other is a truck.
Remote control features don't matter to me. And since I only fill up about once a month, recharging at home is also unimportant.
Let me know when someone builds similar trucks make it economically feasible to switch.
Re: (Score:2)
- largely offaet by the cost of renovating your home with possibly multiple chargers if there are multiple drivers as well as inconvienence when l away from home
- like touchscreens that are proven to be distracting and hard to use while driving?
- fobs work fine. No internet required. Don't need to clutter my phone with yet another app. No activity tracking or subscription charges.
- unless I'm guaranteed of the chargi
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It gets worse. Most people don't buy new cars, but used cars. Before amount of distance car travelled combined with age was a very good indicator on how much life there's left in a vehicle.
Modern electrics are built on the IT model instead. Make resale as hard as possible ("rented rather than bought" amenities mostly don't transfer to new owner, unknown battery wear, etc) because manufacturer doesn't make money on resales. Well, turns out that doesn't actually work in a good as high value as a car. Most peo
Degrowth, is the story. (Score:2)
But there's also the aspect that for many political apparatchiks, stated goal isn't transition to EVs, but degrowth. But that's another story.
There's also the aspect of Greed selling the delusion that degrowth is 'another' story to worry about at some 'other' time, but that's more the sales pitch most are ironically believing to turn delusion into reality.
Not just new EV prices but all new car prices are still obscene, and Greeds answer is a discount on an inflated interest rate and 84-month financing? Seriously? Given how shitty manufacturing and maintenance practices have become, it doesn't take but a few years to start to immobilize the vuln
Re: (Score:2)
turning the necessity of a car into a luxury is a kind of evil that should not be tolerated
It's exactly what we need to do, but as usual we aren't providing the alternative before doing it so we're screwing people big-time. We need to expand public transportation (especially rail) BEFORE making cars unaffordable, not AFTER. But that would take the will to do the right thing, and that is prevented from existing by big piles of lobbying money.
Re: (Score:2)
turning the necessity of a car into a luxury is a kind of evil that should not be tolerated
It's exactly what we need to do, but as usual we aren't providing the alternative before doing it so we're screwing people big-time. We need to expand public transportation (especially rail) BEFORE making cars unaffordable, not AFTER. But that would take the will to do the right thing, and that is prevented from existing by big piles of lobbying money.
Forget car sales. Forget CO2 emissions. Forget profits for a moment. Why in the HELL should we ever assume the answer to any of our current problems, is to actually make mobility unaffordable?
The hell do you actually think Greed is going to do with the price of public transportation once Greed realizes just how many rely on it to survive? Do you see any payday lending companies offering 1% rates because those using their services can't really afford any more than that? Hell no you don't. Greed highlig
Re: (Score:2)
Forget car sales. Forget CO2 emissions. Forget profits for a moment. Why in the HELL should we ever assume the answer to any of our current problems, is to actually make mobility unaffordable?
Making the only means affordable mobility unaffordable is not the answer. Making an unsustainable means of attaining mobility unaffordable is, however, necessary. The obvious answer is to make some other means affordable before making the current means unaffordable.
We need to solve our environmental problems without looking towards history, which has traditionally chosen mass death as the "answer" for Greed to not give a shit about mass harm.
You are seriously arguing we should not look at history to determine what we should do next? I think you need to work on that one for a while.
Re: (Score:2)
Do your kids a favor and teach them to not be quite as gullible as you were.
I'm so non-gullible I didn't let anyone guilt me into breeding.
Re: (Score:2)
It's exactly what we need to do, but as usual we aren't providing the alternative before doing it so we're screwing people big-time.
Well, here in my not-quite-affluent part of Florida the answer to that is already becoming obvious. People who can't afford cars are driving whatever else they can afford. I've been noticing a lot more e-bikes and scooters, as well as people saying "fuck it" and driving things that aren't technically street legal, such as UTVs.
Yeah, it sucks to drive a non-enclosed vehicle when the weather turns nasty, but people are gonna do what they need to do to get to work.
Re:How about...no? (Score:5, Informative)
unknown battery wear
You can get a good idea of that by fully charging the battery and looking at the range.
My spouse bought her EV in 2015 with a 240-mile range.
Today, a full charge is 232 miles.
So about a 3% degradation.
That's pretty good for a nine-year-old battery.
Re: How about...no? (Score:2)
Is that measured or estimated range? My VW diesel estimates that it puts out no pollution at all.
Re:How about...no? (Score:4, Informative)
This doesn't help at point of sale, because predicted range and actual range have a massive delta in a worn out battery. And the entire point of buying a used vehicle is buying something you don't know how it was used, and trusting that your mechanic can diagnose potential problems with your purchase before you commit.
Even mechanics at the OEM often cannot tell you what actual wear of the battery is. Because it's impossible. The car in front of you may be a steal. Or it can be a fraud. Or it can be about correctly priced. As a buyer, you have no way of knowing until you've ran it for through a few full cycles.
Re:How about...no? (Score:5, Insightful)
The car manufacturers will produce whatever they can make money selling.
All manufacturers will produce whatever they can make the most money selling. Regardless of if it's the best product, the safest product, the most convenient product, the cleanest product, or even the most wanted product. That isn't a good thing.
EVs are significantly more expensive than equivalent gasoline-powered cars. If you hold your head just right, and you can charge from home, you can sort of pretend that the savings in fuel costs justifies the higher purchase price.
Sort of? I fuel up every 10 days because I don't drive a lot. It's in excess of $100 CDN a tank. I'm in the realm of $4,000 CDN a year. I keep my cars at least a decade, meaning $40,000 in gas. Let's ignore oil changes and other mechanical maintenance costs. Electricity for the number of kilometers I drive is a very small fraction of that. There's no head-tilting required to justify the cost... just math.
The higher prices mean that most of the people who are going to buy EVs already have. Everyone else will wait until the prices drop, or until they have no other choice.
The good news is that progress in the EV sector has been driving the general value upwards. For instance range and reliability are improving. And the FUD about things like battery packs all going bad immediately after warranty ending turn out to be false. (So far. I fully expect that feature will be 'fixed' by auto manufacturers as they dial in the process.) There will be more and cheaper EVs over the next few years. You're looking at the infancy of the product.
Anyone who cannot charge at home (renters, condo owners, etc.), will find an EV to be a serious inconvenience, and will never buy an EV until something changes.
How serious is that serious? I mean... the average driver goes ~37 miles a day. Call that charging once a week with today's cars. So... plug the thing in while you're in the grocery store? The build-out of charging networks has been steady, barring Elon's latest episode. That's going to continue, and it's going to continue as it proves an attractor. Grocery stores - for instance - will be getting on that bandwagon because it draws EV users from their competitors who haven't modified their parking lots.
Again, this is an evolving market in its early stages. But it turns out that most of the FUD worries are just that.
What this article is about is manufacturers dragging their feet and blocking that progress is because the shift to BEV redistributes who makes money somewhat. Some of the feeder plants making IC engines may go out of business. Some new plants making batteries will be born. Gas stations will slowly go extinct. Stores will start investing in chargers. Car manufacturers can't predict their share of the market anymore because competitors' products may make it to market faster and may be more popular. When you rely on the fat-ass truck-peen F-150 for your yearly dividend as CEO of Ford, you worry at night that the Lightning may not compete with some other e-Truck. So you lobby. Which sucks for us all. Well... except the CEO. Which is what the article is about.
lolwaffles (Score:2)
Hey, how do *I* get paid to shillmod for big oil? I could use the cash rn.
Re:How about...no? (Score:5, Insightful)
If that's how our automakers want to play it, then they don't need protectionism from China EV's. Let's see how much "significantly more expensive" EV's really are.
Re: (Score:2)
EVs are already cheaper than ICEs in China.
Protectionism is often justified to help domestic manufacturers "catch up" but almost always leads to them falling further behind.
Re:How about...no? (Score:4, Informative)
If that's how our automakers want to play it, then they don't need protectionism from China EV's.
China's EVs are heavily subsidized on multiple levels, from direct rebates, to discounted raw materials and labor incentives.
https://www.reuters.com/world/... [reuters.com]
And, as always, this only effects vehicles produced in China for domestic and export, as you are not allowed to import cars into China en masse (if you are loaded, you can import a Ferrari or Land Rover into China as a one-off, with a ludicrous tariff added)
Re:How about...no? (Score:5, Informative)
EVs are significantly more expensive than equivalent gasoline-powered cars. If you hold your head just right, and you can charge from home, you can sort of pretend that the savings in fuel costs justifies the higher purchase price.
Here's a 3 year TCO comparison [caranddriver.com] that has EVs and ICE cars coming in at about the same.
That's for the first 3 years; if you hold onto the EV longer, the decreased energy and maintenance costs will continue to make them cheaper.
On top of that, as EV tech continues to improve, their cost will come down and reliability will go up (maintenance costs will come down even further).
Re: (Score:2)
Car manufactures don't want to switch over and are actively pushing against it, because it will mean less profit for them both now, and in the future.
Now: manufacturing, tooling, and design investments, that would make electric cars cheaper as they are produced at larger scale
Later: first, the parts industry, currently, is a very large source of income. Second, maintenance EVs need very little maintenance if not designed poorly. No gas, No oil, no plugs, no water pumps etc
Lastly, don't forget about the gas
Re: How about...no? (Score:2)
Ah the blessed free market. I'm sure it'll solve all our problems
Re: (Score:2)
Mommy, sorry, it is not a matter of price for me at all. I will not buy an electric car because I don't want to plan my day around charging stations, that is all. I have an electric monowheel, that is for fun and I have to admit, it is useful for short store trips not too far from me, but it is not a car, it is just a convenient small mode of transportation.
It is not even about accessibility to a charging station, we have many around, I don't want to bother to think about them. When I need to add fuel I
Re: (Score:2)
That has to assume we don't find more reserves in the world or that battery tech makes no advances in the 20-30 years it would take to exploit those known reserves.
Not saying it won't turn out that way but based on "known reserves" we were supposed to hit peak oil production like 30 years ago but new tech which enabled funding and drilling new reserves means today we likely reach peak oil as a function of demand before we reach it from production.
Is that a question? (Score:2)
Yes they now have their own versions, but big corporations tend to get stuck in their ways.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Is that a question? (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with that is the national security issue. Right now it'd be pretty difficult to get the US to trust the CCP wasn't putting every backdoor they could into those vehicles, and considering EVs these days seem to all come with an Internet connectivity requirement there's a risk of China using vehicle telemetry for spying, and firmware updates for sabotage.
If it weren't for that, I'd be 100% in agreement with you; open the doors to competition so long as they build in the USA and let the existing manufacturers compete or fail.
Re:Is that a question? (Score:5, Insightful)
Right now it'd be pretty difficult to get the US to trust the CCP wasn't putting every backdoor they could into those vehicles, and considering EVs these days seem to all come with an Internet connectivity requirement there's a risk of China using vehicle telemetry for spying, and firmware updates for sabotage.
Go to Walmart sometime and look at all the various internet connected stuff that's made in China. If national security was truly a real concern, the ban list would be a lot longer. Right now, it just reeks of protectionism, because American companies cry foul to our leaders when faced with the prospect of China winning the game of capitalism. Pity they couldn't just, you know, actually try to compete.
Re: (Score:2)
That hasn't really changed. Tesla had to set up their Connecticut showroom in an Indian casino because they couldn't get approval to build it anywhere else.
Multiple problems (Score:5, Interesting)
The approach that the US took has hurt the global production of EVs. It's turned into a political issue here. People think they are getting 'forced' to drive EVs.
The tax rebate program is also silly here. The tax credit should be available to all Americans or not at all. Automakers are advertising prices based on people actually getting the credit. When you dig into the details, you find out the car is $7500 more than you thought.
Finally, the cheap EV has never arrived. It's really 40k+ for an EV here. When EVs are cheaper than gas cars, people will buy them. Until then, you really need to want one. To clarify, TCO might be cheaper for some people with an EV including all factors, but that's not what people think about when buying. They think about the sticker price, the monthly payments, and if the car might make it through the loan period. The last point is key. People have uncertainty about battery longevity and there's horror stories out there about EV batteries not being covered by warranty or a balloon payment of 10-30k for a new one.
I've been shopping for a new car. I wish more models were hybrids at this point. Some companies like toyota have semi-reasonable prices on hybrids, but many still sell gas guzzlers below $35k. I could on paper afford an EV, but I don't drive that much and it wouldn't pay for itself the way it works for people who commute. I just don't want to spend 40k on a car.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Better depends on who it is better for. It does not matter if EVs are better for consumers because it is not better for the ICE automakers in the short run. They do not want to spend huge amounts on R&D unless it is their idea. Companies do not like being forced to do things differently by competition or legislation. It has been shown time and time again that they will do whatever just about anything (lie, steal, cheat) to slow down progress unless it is their idea.
Re: (Score:2)
The approach that the US took has hurt the global production of EVs. It's turned into a political issue here. People think they are getting 'forced' to drive EVs.
They are, albeit much more slowly than they think.
The tax rebate program is also silly here. The tax credit should be available to all Americans or not at all.
Why should people who don't need the credit get the credit? Why should automakers be allowed to advertise the price with a credit the customer might not be entitled to?
Finally, the cheap EV has never arrived.
And it won't, because Biden is putting a 100% tariff on EVs from China, preventing competition from the only place that might provide it. This tariff is openly protectionist because it doesn't offer any provision for any Chinese manufacturers willing and able to demonstrate that they're not be
Re: (Score:2)
It's turned into a political issue here. People think they are getting 'forced' to drive EVs. Automakers are advertising prices based on people actually getting the credit. When you dig into the details, you find out the car is $7500 more than you thought.
Finally, the cheap EV has never arrived. It's really 40k+ for an EV here. When EVs are cheaper than gas cars, people will buy them. They think about the sticker price, the monthly payments, and if the car might make it through the loan period. The last point is key. People have uncertainty about battery longevity and there's horror stories out there about EV batteries not being covered by warranty or a balloon payment of 10-30k for a new one.
Here, let me sum up the entire problem; Greed needs to stop lying to consumers to try and get sales. Stop lying about how you can't possibly lower the 25%-over-MSRP price while wearing a $1000 suit walking around a multi-million dollar showroom. Stop lying about 'limited' availability when you're still trying to push 2023 models off lots. Stop lying about battery performance in real world weather conditions. Stop lying about maintenance intervals to destroy the product before the damn 84-month loan is d
Cars not part of the climate agenda (Score:2)
Obviously (Score:2, Informative)
Fossilized companies do not want to change and often cannot. Hence they sabotage all attempts in the direction of change.
You mean...? (Score:3)
...they intentionally build giant iPads on wheels?
Granted, I keep meeting people who will tell me they like those. Obviously, those people go right on the purge list :D.
Batteries still need solved (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm a big fan of EVs, but the car battery really doesn't cut it yet. We desperately need the next gen of battery. Lithium-Cobalt is not a good chemistry at all. It's good enough for handheld devices is about all. Right off the bat, it's the only commercially produced chemistry that readily goes on fire! That's just a terrible direction to go in.
Interrelatedly, Lithium-Cobalts are also too slow to charge without degradation. Then they're far too expensive and, lastly, energy density still isn't really good enough either.
Government level R&D spend on alternatives should have been extreme decades ago. Sadly, it's never happened at all, afaik.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a big fan of EVs, but the car battery really doesn't cut it yet. We desperately need the next gen of battery. Lithium-Cobalt is not a good chemistry at all.
I'm a bit confused here. We are already using the next generation of battery after NCM. It's LFP. The only problem is, we haven't stopped using the NCMs. But even ~50% of Teslas (whose original batteries were made of clusters of cylindrical NCM cells) made in the USA use prismatic LFP cells... supplied from China. Whoops, Joe just increased the tariff on those from 25% to 100%, guess Tesla will stop using them and just do all NCM from now on.
Perhaps you want the next "next gen" of battery? Me too. But LFPs
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't know anyone was using Lithium-Phosphate on a large scale in vehicles. Last I heard this chemistry was only half the energy density of Lithium-Cobalt. If that has truly changed then that's a very good start. This chemistry has historically been very good where density wasn't the main driver. And it's not just less prone to ignition, it can't be ignited at all - A big plus! Still rather expensive though.
The reason why China got ahead on Lithium-Phosphate was they ignored the 20 year patent perio
Re: (Score:2)
It's false that LFPs can't be ignited. They are much, much harder to ignite, but they can still burn. They are also much, much easier to put out because NCM electrolyte releases oxygen when heated and LFP doesn't (which is also a large part of why they are less likely to combust) but they are also still toxic when burning and non-trivial to extinguish. I am very pro-LFP because they are better about all of these things than NCM, and support more and more EVs being made with them, but I do still hope for sup
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The great thing about expanding infrastructure is governments know that's an easy spend. It always creates lots of employment that also "adds value", unlike dreary maintenance.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Batteries still need solved (Score:4, Informative)
Right off the bat, it's the only commercially produced chemistry that readily goes on fire! That's just a terrible direction to go in.
It goes on fire much much less readily than gasoline. The reason you don't hear about cars catching fire all the time is because they catch fire all the time, and something that happens continuously every day at the rate of about 600 per day just isn't news.
So you don't hear about it.
Can we at least be honest... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course we demand them because if we leave the easy "we've always done it this way" option on the table, they'll pick it and we'll have to bail them out with trillions when they end up with no product anyone wants to buy. Who here has a Nokia feature phone and uses it to call the vet when the horse drawn buggy breaks down?
Details matter (Score:2)
This article only talked about numbers of policies "promoting" EVs. It never provided any details of these policies.
Are we going to insist that every single policy that regulators come up with, if it's labeled "EV Friendly," is a good policy?
For example, the rules around what is required to qualify for an EV tax credit https://www.irs.gov/credits-de... [irs.gov] keep changing, and they're not easy to qualify for. Is this really a good plan? Is every single provision a good provision?
The *number* of policies automaker
Tesla-Shitting (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That article is from 2016
These policies aren't just about clean EVs (Score:2)
For example, the EV tax credit rules https://www.irs.gov/credits-de... [irs.gov] exclude vehicles over a certain weight, and over a certain price, and if your income is too high, you don't qualify, and the vehicle must be assembled in the US. There are a bunch of other rules that have nothing to do with the desire to transition to "clean EVs." If I'm a vehicle manufacturer, why shouldn't I be able to protest some of these provisions, without being labeled "anti-EV"?
I can't imagine ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
They didn't say anything very controversial: GM and others were convicted of doing the first part of what they said back in the middle of the last century, and the stuff about modern SUVs being more dangerous and unsafe for the general public are backed up by the statistics (and basic physics). We only see the manufacturers pushing SUVs so hard because they are dodging the consumer safety and environmental laws around sedans: https://www.vox.com/future-per... [vox.com]
Re: (Score:3)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
there you go.
Re: (Score:2)
Literally the plot of Who Framed Roger Rabbit.
Re: (Score:3)
Of course, it oversimplifies things to make it out like this was all some villainous plot.
It was literally a villainous plot [wikipedia.org].
The concept of private vehicle ownership sounds good at first glance.
The conspiracists bought up profitable rail transit systems and destroyed them. Clearly people thought what was destroyed was good, because they were using it.
electric is now innovation (Score:2)
there is nothing innovating about moving to electric cars. EVs are old tech by now. Does the editor know what innovate mean?
Hmmmmmmm (Score:2)
So what exactly does it take to become a "think tank"? Fill out a few forms?
Car prices (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Renault 5 E-tech, Citroen eC3 and Fiat Panda EV will be available shortly for 25k, baby steps.
History Repeats Itself (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm old enough to remember the 70s when US automakers were left flat-footed when the Environmental Protection Act was passed, and two oil embargoes meant the rapid transition to smaller cars with smaller engines. Sure, Renault, Honda, Datsun, Toyota, Fiat, and VW were in the US selling their vehicles and they were popular but it wasn't until that first embargo and then the push for lower emissions that changed buying habits. Detroit didn't have a response and people were dumping their Delta 88s and Lincoln Town Cars at the import dealerships for Corollas and Datsun Honey Bees. By the end of the '70s US cars were a maze of rubber hoses and had anemic performance, they were junk with leather supposedly from some far-away place but instead it came from a Tannery in New Jersey.
Now fast forward to the next existential crisis pushed into political dogma and what's left in US auto production is scrambling to find an answer. So, they knee-jerk into building EVs, laying off thousands of workers, and say "We're going to go all-electric!" and they're again flat-footed. What they deliver is more of a status symbol than practical transportation. When a car like the Nissan Leaf works for most people looking for an alternative, Ford and GM are making $100K status symbols that are poor quality and can't be fixed by dealers. Couple that with an economic downturn and high interest rates and nobody can afford $1200/mo car payments in the middle class. When was the last time you saw a Hummer EV on the road? I live in Texas and on my street alone, 16 houses, there are 4 Teslas, 1 Mach E, and 1 BMW EV whatever it is. It's not a question of adoption, it's a question of value, price, and durability. Can you fix one that's been in a minor fender bender safely without totaling it over concerns that the battery may be damaged and could explode at any time? Given that risk it's no wonder that body shops won't take EVs. Don't get me started about charging networks and the Billions in US Taxpayer funds going into that hole. People on my block have their own charging solutions and don't drive over 25 miles a day in them, which makes sense for them and that's good.
That conversely drives up the price of auto insurance for everyone as well. It's a perfect shit storm. Now you have US automakers backing off EV plans because they're losing billions on them and having their boards finally step in and say "enough."
Re: (Score:2)
When a car like the Nissan Leaf works for most people looking for an alternative, Ford and GM are making $100K status symbols that are poor quality and can't be fixed by dealers.
They saw Tesla's success and wanted to copy it exactly, but they forgot that Tesla had first mover advantage. Ford in particular (but all automakers really) wants to do away with the dealerships. They get a cut of the sale that the manufacturer feels THEY could be collecting. For Ford, the fact that hundreds of dealers have chosen not to sell their EVs is a boon. And since they got Biden's protectionist tariff to protect them from cheap imported Chinese EVs, they can keep doing what they're doing for some t
Fixed: "Are Companies Sabotaging?" (Score:2)
Yes.
Working class people (Score:3)
EVs are expensive to own, expensive to repair, expensive to insure and offer short range. Working class people need the opposite. We need cheap cars, cheap to repair and insure and with long range / cheap running cost. Can you see why the market demand for EVs is dropping now? Enthusiasts and those better off among us who can afford have switched. Working class people will never do as long as they have a choice.
back in reality... (Score:2)
100% EVs are clearly not the solution.. (Score:4, Interesting)
..yet.
Realistically we should be doing this in a phased approach, but PHEVs are the solution for the next decade vs EVs.
A large majority of people who have cars use them to commute to work, commute doing small errands etc all within a 50 - 100 mile daily round trip. Being able to creative PHEVs that accommodate that lifestyle would practically eliminate a large majority of fossil fuel use. Making use of daytime solar charging would help tremendously as well, but the charging network is rife with problems, mainly not enough chargers, chargers in disrepair, and vandals steeling copper wiring or simply breaking them because they hate EVs. Daytime charging should be incentivized so we don't have to dedicate finite battery production resources into battery storage (unless they're alternative chemistries like sodium ion or similar).
Once we get past the initial hump and get everyone a PHEV, we can focus on full EVs during the next cycle of automotive upgrades.
People are focusing too closely on eliminating all ICE engines in cars to see the big picture, and that's a reduction of CO2 emissions.
Beyond cars though, AI is causing a huge boom in emissions and Crypto has been a historical contributor over the past decade. We need to clamp down on responsible data center power consumption as well.
Re: (Score:3)
Just give the automakers a mandatory goal and timeframe
How about we let people freely choose? Always trying to force things...
threatens the global transition to electric vehicles
The way the article words it, sounds like we're ruining the plans of Dr. Evil's from Austin Powers
Re: (Score:3)
Anarchy then? Or just for cars?
Re: (Score:2)
You'll notice that the only car companies that think that they can hit their 2030 EV targets are BMW, Mercedes, and Tesla. Those companies already produce mostly upscale luxury vehicles that most people can't afford to buy, so the price premium for EV's doesn't really hit them as hard.
The car companies who still produce "reasonably" priced cars and trucks (Ford, GM, Toyota, Honda, etc) know that they don't have a chance of meeting their EV production targets unless there is a major breakthrough in battery t
Re: (Score:2)
Relying on the “we’ll run out of oil” concept is a spectacularly bad idea. Last time I checked, burning all known reserves would result in a T increase of like 6-9 C. I’ll leave it to you to look up
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, I referenced Waterworld, I'm fully on board. On board the trimaran we use as a base of operations to go diving for handfuls of dirt, I guess.
I'm just sayin', capitalists gonna capital.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
People choose from the options available to them based on their needs and means.
Nobody "chooses" to drive a Nissan Sentra or Mitsubishi Mirage but those are the options available to some people. No offense to any of those cars but almost everyone driving those if they had the option of a better car at the same price they would but they don't.
Plastics are the same way, go into a supermarket, so I have an option for a box of cereal not packed in a plastic bag? At the same price? A 2 liter of soda, is there a