Which Way is the EV Market Headed? And Does the US Lag the World? (yahoo.com) 346
Wednesday the annual electric vehicle outlook report was released by market researcher BloombergNEF. And the analyst wrote that "Our long-term outlook for EVs remains bright," according to the Los Angeles Times:
In 2023, EVs made up 18% of global passenger-vehicle sales. By 2030, according to the report, 45% will be EVs. That number jumps to 73% by 2040 — still short of what the world needs to reach net zero emissions in transportation, the firm says, but enough to achieve major reductions in climate-changing carbon emissions...
[D]ifferent countries are moving at different speeds and with different levels of commitment. Today, "China, India and France are still showing signs of healthy growth, but the latest data from Germany, Italy and the U.S. is more concerning," BloombergNEF said. Global EV sales "are set to rise from 13.9 million in 2023 to over 30 million in 2027," despite the lagging U.S. [The article points out later that "For the first quarter in China, EV sales were up 37%, according to BloombergNEF. In India, it's 39%, and in France, 20%. The U.S. was a laggard, up just 4%."]
Whatever the geography, consumer concerns about price, driving range, battery lifespan, and unreliable public charging continue to dampen many buyers' enthusiasm for EVs. BloombergNEF's findings are echoed by consulting firm McKinsey and the AAA motor club, in recent forecasts of their own. But EV prices are coming down, range is improving, and large numbers of public chargers are being installed, all of which could revive sales growth. Consumers around the planet are warming to the idea of buying an electric car, but they're moving slowly. According to McKinsey, 14% of 30,000 global survey respondents in 2021 said their next vehicle would be an EV. This year, it's 18%.
In the U.S. it's a different story, where consumer interest in an EV purchase declined to 18% this year, according to AAA's survey, down from 23% in 2023. And nearly two-thirds reported they were unlikely to buy an EV next time they buy a car. Interest in hybrids is on the rise. One in three said they were likely to buy a hybrid, a vehicle that adds a small battery to an internal combustion engine to improve fuel efficiency. That's bad news for pure EV sales, at least in the immediate future, said Greg Brannon, head of automotive research at AAA. Early adopters already have their EVs, he said, while mainstream buyers remain skeptical.
The article does note that major automakers "are losing billions of dollars in their EV division," with several cutting the EV goals for the U.S. (Though Hyundai and Kia are not.) And then there's this... A global survey conducted by consulting firm McKinsey, also released Wednesday, included this shocker: 29% of EV owners told McKinsey they plan to replace the EV they bought with a gasoline or diesel car, a figure that jumps to 38% for U.S. EV owners. Phillip Kampshoff, who leads McKinsey's Center for Future Mobility in the Americas, said he'd seen EV sales as "a one way street. Once you buy, you're hooked on an EV. But that's not what the data shows...."
But the article points out that both BloombergNEF and McKinsey still remained bullish that adoption will increase in the future.
[D]ifferent countries are moving at different speeds and with different levels of commitment. Today, "China, India and France are still showing signs of healthy growth, but the latest data from Germany, Italy and the U.S. is more concerning," BloombergNEF said. Global EV sales "are set to rise from 13.9 million in 2023 to over 30 million in 2027," despite the lagging U.S. [The article points out later that "For the first quarter in China, EV sales were up 37%, according to BloombergNEF. In India, it's 39%, and in France, 20%. The U.S. was a laggard, up just 4%."]
Whatever the geography, consumer concerns about price, driving range, battery lifespan, and unreliable public charging continue to dampen many buyers' enthusiasm for EVs. BloombergNEF's findings are echoed by consulting firm McKinsey and the AAA motor club, in recent forecasts of their own. But EV prices are coming down, range is improving, and large numbers of public chargers are being installed, all of which could revive sales growth. Consumers around the planet are warming to the idea of buying an electric car, but they're moving slowly. According to McKinsey, 14% of 30,000 global survey respondents in 2021 said their next vehicle would be an EV. This year, it's 18%.
In the U.S. it's a different story, where consumer interest in an EV purchase declined to 18% this year, according to AAA's survey, down from 23% in 2023. And nearly two-thirds reported they were unlikely to buy an EV next time they buy a car. Interest in hybrids is on the rise. One in three said they were likely to buy a hybrid, a vehicle that adds a small battery to an internal combustion engine to improve fuel efficiency. That's bad news for pure EV sales, at least in the immediate future, said Greg Brannon, head of automotive research at AAA. Early adopters already have their EVs, he said, while mainstream buyers remain skeptical.
The article does note that major automakers "are losing billions of dollars in their EV division," with several cutting the EV goals for the U.S. (Though Hyundai and Kia are not.) And then there's this... A global survey conducted by consulting firm McKinsey, also released Wednesday, included this shocker: 29% of EV owners told McKinsey they plan to replace the EV they bought with a gasoline or diesel car, a figure that jumps to 38% for U.S. EV owners. Phillip Kampshoff, who leads McKinsey's Center for Future Mobility in the Americas, said he'd seen EV sales as "a one way street. Once you buy, you're hooked on an EV. But that's not what the data shows...."
But the article points out that both BloombergNEF and McKinsey still remained bullish that adoption will increase in the future.
Plug-in hybrids are best hedge (Score:4, Insightful)
Plug-in hybrids allow one to use gas OR wire as suits needs. I realize the tech is somewhat immature, but makes the most sense for an uncertain future.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
In the US BMW did this with the "Mini Cooper Countryman S E All4 (https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a14910074/2018-mini-cooper-s-e-countryman-all4-plug-in-hybrid-test-review/). Reviews were mixed. This is the only pure "through the road" hybrid i know of. The Rav4 Prime and Prius Prime (and not PHEV Prius eAWD) and Lincoln Corsair GT (and maybe some Volvos) do use a pure electric rear axle, but also use a hybrid set-up on the front axle as well.
The planetary gear CVTs that hybrids allow (like the T
Re: (Score:2)
Yea, this is what BMW i3 with range extender is. Not a diesel but a motorbike generator though it does not even double the range and can only go rather slowly (sub-highway speeds).
The diesel-diesel electric design is optimized on torque rather than economy. To get enough torque our of diesel engine alone would require a lot of gears (think semi tracks).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
PHEVs tech is plenty mature. Chevy Volt was introduced in 2010 and and was able to operate electric only (decent acceleration and highway speeds) with a 40+ mile range. Ford has had their The current Toyota Rav4 Prime even more so (in that it throws in AWD and even better electric only performance). Ford's PHEVs have also been around for over a decade, though they've always had smaller electric motors so their "electric only" performance was not up to snuff. In reality that still gets you what 80%+ plus
Its also counterproductive, not simply obnoxious (Score:2)
The obnoxious part of the whole "EV" marketing push is the "we gotta get to zero!!" piece instead of "hey, use them where it makes sense"
It's also counterproductive, not simply obnoxious. You can't take tech that has good product market fit only with early adopters, and bad fit for the main market, and expect emotional bullying to overcome all of the main market's legitimate concerns. That bullying just makes them feel more negative and skeptical.
Re: (Score:3)
The lack of home charging is a country specific issue. There are solutions that have been deployed and proven, it's just that some countries are politically unable to implement them. The US and UK are examples of that, where things like mandates for landlords and apartment building owners, and on-street chargers billed to your home account, are not something that the politicians are willing to do.
As we change over street lighting to more efficient LEDs, there is a big opportunity there to re-use the now unu
Re: (Score:2)
and on-street chargers billed to your home account, are not something that the politicians are willing to do.
Someone's got to get a cut. Those peerages don't come for free you know. And with evisceration of council funding from 14 years of austerity it's not like councils have the budget.
Maybe with Starmer we can austerity our way of austerity...
As we change over street lighting to more efficient LEDs, there is a big opportunity there to re-use the now unused power that was needed for old lighting tech for
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Plug-in hybrids are best hedge (Score:5, Interesting)
Plug-in hybrid technology is hardly "immature" -- at least in if by "immature" you mean "not quite practical yet". Plug-in hybrids have been extremely practical for at least half a decade now, offering an excellent combination of convenience and low operating costs.
Use-case specifics determine what is practical for whom; and in America we have congested, car-centric cities and vast intercity distances to cover, with as-yet not quite built out and reliable charging infrastructure and poor inter-city transit links. For these reasons the average American car owner drives twice as many miles per year as the average European, and while modern EV ranges are impressive that comes at a cost premium and charging time limitations. So arguably EV technology and infrastructure is not quite ready for many of us, but virtually all of us could use a PHEV as our daily driver.
Re: Plug-in hybrids are best hedge (Score:3)
I love my 2015 Volt PHEV. However, the mileage is not as good as it could be due to the weight of having 2 engines. The maintenance costs can be higher than either an EV or ICE due to increased complexity.
The biggest issue IMO is that some owners never charge their PHEVs and just use them as ICEs, for whatever reason. This is not great for reducing emissions, obviously.
Re: (Score:2)
How is the reliability? To me the volt drivetrain looks unusual, so I can see why maintenance is costlier, but somewhat simpler than a pure ICE one.
Re: Plug-in hybrids are best hedge (Score:3)
Until 3 months ago I had done nothing but tires and oil changes.
Then, there was some corrosion in the battery coolant tank. It had to be replaced. That was not a cheap repair.
But averaged over 9 years, not a crazy amount, and of course way cheaper than any new car. I hope I don't have another pricey repair in the near future. Not sure what I would buy today if it was totaled. If Chevy had a new Volt on the market, perhaps with a bigger EV range, I would probably buy another. I believe GM is working on it,
Re:Plug-in hybrids are best hedge (Score:5, Informative)
Batteries are not even space/weight constrained anymore with newer battery formats. So car manufacturers have enough leeway to simply install larger battery trays, a car with 500-600 mile range is doable without any crazy battery packing with additional cells in the trunk. This is not a speculation, NIO in China demonstrated a real-world 1000 km (650 miles) battery, they even live-streamed the drive: https://www.newsweek.com/china... [newsweek.com]
So we have already passed the point where adding more batteries is less effective than adding a gas-powered range-extender.
Re: Plug-in hybrids are best hedge (Score:2)
Even 600 miles range isn't going to cut it for some trips, if you can't find a fast destination charger.
Our last road trip in Cali was about 1300 miles. The place we stayed at didn't have an L3, L2 or even L1.
If we had taken our 2017 Bolt EV, we would have been in real trouble.
With the 2015 Volt, it was no sweat. Except for the $6.99/premium gas.
A 600 mile vehicle would have needed at least 2 charges. Not clear if we could have found something fast enough, or close enough to charge overnight.
Despite the im
Re: (Score:2)
Even 600 miles range isn't going to cut it for some trips, if you can't find a fast destination charger.
There are DCFC chargers ("fast chargers"). The longest span of numbered state highways without fast chargers is 550 miles (in the contiguous 48 states). From Whitefish, MT to Wiliston, ND. And in California, you are never more than 80 miles from a charger.
Sure, destination chargers help a lot but even without them, a 600-mile car can drive ANYWHERE in the lower US without getting stuck. And with about 50 more fast charging stations, _all_ of the US will be reachable with 300 miles of range.
Despite the improvements in battery density and cost, I don't think every car needs 600 miles of range.
Sure. But we're
Re: (Score:3)
550 miles is a huge distance. And if you drive an EV, you know that there are tons of factors that affect range, such as battery age, acceleration, weather conditions, terrain, heater use, to name just a few. know I wouldn't be cutting it that close. It doesn't much to cut your range by 10%. When all these things aligned for the worst, range could go down 40% in my first generation Nissan Leaf.
Even 80 miles from a charger is a huge distance if it's in not in the right direction.
DCFCs are not the only requi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Plug-in hybrids are best hedge (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It means you have 2 power trains to maintain.
They have found that most people do not plugin so their emissions are up 350% over advertised. [autonews.com]
To use a claim made against EVs (an ignorant one) hybrids are the most likely to go up in flames.
90% of journeys are less than 40 miles
You still pollute the streets when not using the electric motor
Maybe EVs would do better ... (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Bang on. I am the ideal target consumer for a Tesla - own my home, drive mostly short distances, tech savvy, etc. I was seriously considering a Tesla for my next car, until that guy revealed to the world what a giant asshole he is. I'm not giving him any of my money.
Re: (Score:2)
I would love to belong to that club, but that's my second reason. The first is an EV still isn't economically competitive with a used ICE, and there are still more gas stations than charging stations if I want to do long drives.
But give me a 2-seat EV with a max speed of 60 and a 100km range... The price point of something that modest would have me switch one of the two family cars immediately.
Re: (Score:2)
If someone wanted to GIVE me an EV, then sure, I'd take it. Buy BUY one? Not for anything even remotely close to today's prices.
Make one with a 500 mile range and at least as much cargo capacity as a CR-V and I'd pay $10K for it (tax and fees included).
Re: (Score:3)
But give me a 2-seat EV with a max speed of 60 and a 100km range... The price point of something that modest would have me switch one of the two family cars immediately.
You might want to take a look at a secondhand Nissan Leaf. 4 seater, but has your other specs easily covered and many are available for about $US5k.
Re: (Score:2)
I might indeed. There are apparently a few near me available for under CAD 10k.
Of course, there's also the need for the level 2 charger if you want a charge time measured in hours instead of days, and the uncertainty of a used battery without doing a full drain test.
But thanks, I am looking into it. I'd rather throw $10k at a Leaf (if it meets my minimum requirements) than almost as much at an ICE.
Re: (Score:2)
Lucid Air at the high end, Cadillac Lyric at bit below that, and any of several VWs are good alternatives to a Tesla.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Can't get one with CarPlay, so i wouldn't even buy one for $10K, let alone what they actually cost.
Re: (Score:2)
Having the gear shift and everything else on the touch screen is another deal-breaker, even after they reintroduced normal wheels instead of the Batman-style yokes.
Re: (Score:3)
Having recently seen a Tesla's display in action, that's a great big "fuck that".
Re: (Score:2)
Oh no! The poor asshole billionaire with a gigantic microphone is being "silenced" by ... some guy buying a different car? Get real.
Actions have consequences. Acting like a giant asshole and alienating your customers is going to be bad for business. Don't like it? Cry harder. See if anyone gives a shit.
Re: (Score:2)
Eckshally... (Score:2)
Eckshally he is both a douchebag and a visionary. He also put his money where his big mouth is. Three times (Tesla, SpaceX, X). Two out of three ain't bad.
Re: (Score:2)
Eckshally he is both a douchebag and a visionary
So that makes him a douchenary visionbag
Re:Greater douchebag avoids best EV over politics (Score:5, Insightful)
You can't be serious!
Why would I give money to an asshole who is actively working against my interests? That's beyond irrational.
Sorry, kid, that's just the free market. Actions have consequences. Maybe he shouldn't have pissed off the largest demographic of potential EV customers?
You could always try buying a Cybertruck to "own" the libs. We'll be super triggered!
Re: (Score:3)
Does that mean you donate to liberal politicians? Because it's in your best interest to have different political voices in a democracy?
You're beyond hope.
Re:Greater douchebag avoids best EV over politics (Score:5, Insightful)
Risk. If you are buying something as expensive as a Tesla, you want long-term support for it. If the CEO is unstable, there is a risk of him sinking the entire company leaving you with an unsupported product. Given recent behaviour, it's even possible that the next tantrum will be to deny service and support to anyone who owns Apple products.
So it's a far safer bet to give your money to any one of a number of other EV manufacturers that produce an equally-good product. Or a much cheaper product that still ticks the boxes for your specific requirements - intra-city commuting does not need high range for example.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with Teslas is that they get regular software updates that make huge changes to the way they drive, at the whims of said douchbag CEO. Some of the updates include safety critical recalls, so you can't safely ignore them.
"They can fix that with a software update" became "oh god what is Elon going to do next?"
The other issue is that you have to be aware of what the car is capable of and what is just Musk's marketing wank. "Full self driving" is no such thing, and never will be, despite his promise
Almost impossible to tell (Score:4, Interesting)
It is almost impossible to tell how the US EV market is doing and where it is headed over the next five years due to two factors:
1) there is a massive propaganda, I mean media management campaign underway to attack EVs in every way possible and create as many negative thought-patterns about them as possible. 90% of these negative memes are not borne out by actual EV use, and the other 10% are consequences of the adapters of any new technology needing to consider use cases before making a decision (generally not true for fully mature technologies with strong market segmentation), but the meme planting has been very successful over the last 12 months
2) Melon Husk has in the last 12 months single-handled undone all the positive EV marketing that Tesla has built up over the 12 years before that. Many many people who were considering EVs are now going to wait at least another 1/2 model generation to avoid buying a Tesla. Many of the established automakers now have solid EV product lines available but they don't have the same cachet that Tesla had until mid-2023 and people aren't enthusiastic about buying them (too bad as most are good vehicles, modulo use case). That's not something the auto journalism world is willing to talk about though for fear of receiving the dreaded poop emoji from Melon or Tesla.
Re: Almost impossible to tell (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't understand all the negativity on EVs. I got one and it works just fine. I love the acceleration and that I don't need to go to & stop at a gas station. Doesn't need anywhere close to as much maintenance. Just -literally- 5 seconds extra to plug it in at home and 5 more to unplug and go.
The car has some issues, like all cars. But it's not the range fear or battery dying or environment impact that appear to get everyone riled up. It's just a car.
Re: (Score:3)
Just -literally- 5 seconds extra to plug it in at home and 5 more to unplug and go.
Picture yourself in my situation: you live in an apartment complex and your car is parked in the apartment complex underground parking. There are some communal standard power plugs but the apartment complex only allows their use for short-term illumination or tool use, definitely not for charging. The apartment complex has no plans for now to install or allow the installation of wall-charging solutions.
Would you still consider an EV a good choice?
Re: (Score:2)
That would depend on your usage pattern: how long is your average commute compared to the battery capacity of the car you'd choose? If you'd only need to charge once per week, you can couple it to another activity. Around here there are chargers in the carparks of supermarkets, gyms, pubs etc. So you can charge up while you are doing something else you'd be doing anyway. In that event, charging isn't an issue.
A lot of employers are installing chargers at work as a cheap to provide extra incentive for people
Re: (Score:3)
So yes, it may not make sense based on your situation, but there are a lot of factors that every individual needs to consider which make the blanket negativity unfounded.
I agree that a blanket negativity is unfounded, but neither is a "blanket positivity" which doesn't recognize that EVs might not work as well in some scenarios. IMHO people will accept inconvenience only so far: this makes e.g. the inability to charge the car where it's usually parked a huge roadblock in the adoption of EVs.
Norway, which is first-in-class in the adoption of EVs, mandated by law the right for tenants to set up a charging point for their car. I think the EU is also working at legislation in t
Re: (Score:2)
The problem I'm seeing is that the mainstream auto producers mostly seem to be building $80,000 electric SUV's and pickup trucks that most people can't afford.
The Chinese EV makers are building $25,000 EV's with decent range, but you can't get those in the US.
Too soon for me (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I have a 17 year old Jeep. I don't see myself replacing it in my lifetime.
Re: (Score:2)
EV repair costs too high (Score:4, Informative)
I drive a 2006 honda accord v6 I bought used in 2009 when someone traded it in. Itâ(TM)s fine and shows no signs of stopping any time soon. Never had to replace an engine or transmission.
I worry what driving an 18yo EV would be like. My friends with teslas, kias, Chevy volts - theyâ(TM)ve all had under warranty battery replacements. And parts availability and technician availability are scarce - the Chevy owner waited over a year for the battery! The Kia niro ev owner waited months!
I go up to autozone and fix my accord myself. When any shade tree mechanic can get a rebuilt battery pack and replace it, maybe Iâ(TM)ll consider an EV. Until then they are too expensive to own.
I could pay for an EV cash - but Iâ(TM)m prioritizing paying for childrenâ(TM)s college and retirement savings - cars are way down the list considering my old accord still gets me places same as a new car would.
Re: (Score:2)
I drive a 2006 honda accord v6 I bought used in 2009 when someone traded it in. Itâ(TM)s fine and shows no signs of stopping any time soon. Never had to replace an engine or transmission.
What makes you think that an engine or transmission are the only issues? I drove a 2006 Clio, past tense because the 3rd time it stranded me on the side of the road I decided that was the end of it. Even when it didn't strand me the cost of repair and basic maintenance over the years was staggering.
But in any case your example is a typical. The majority of cars in America are not 2006 models. The majority of cars are 2012 models or later because it is atypical to keep an old clunker around like you or I did
Re: (Score:2)
That stuff is normal for all new car platforms. They are mature now, and with the exception of Tesla I wouldn't worry about issues going forward.
Of course it helps if your country has good consumer rights laws. Long battery warranties are important too, 8 years is really the minimum.
Re: (Score:3)
Realistically if you're happy with a 2006 accord, just keep driving it until it's dead. This is still much better for the environment. When it's dead look again at the EV landscape and see where it's at. I think in the medium term EVs are going to end up with a large aftermarket ecosystem around them. Many people are just really into working on cars, and there will be demand for aftermarket packs, motors, ECUS etc that will drive a vibrant repair market whether the manufacturers support it or not. The same
Winter in Chicago. (Score:5, Interesting)
The news coverage of EVs failing to cope with Chicago winters really did some damage to their image. Between the need for cabin heat windshield wipers, defrosters, and driving through snow at -20 F an EV struggles.
It's not that cold here, -5 F is a more typical "really cold" day, but that is still below the minimum charging temperature. So you have to pay for the energy to keep the battery warm as well as the energy to charge it and the range is cut in half.
In the meantime the Prius dropped from 56 MPG to 48 MPG and worked fine.
Choice and price (Score:4, Insightful)
>"Whatever the geography, consumer concerns about price, driving range, battery lifespan, and unreliable public charging continue to dampen many buyers' enthusiasm for EVs"
I keep saying it- range, battery life, and public charging are not a concern for me at all. The only two things that hold me back is vehicle choice and price. Pricing of all vehicles is now insane, I don't want to spend $80K to $100K+ on any car. And choice in EV cars is dismal. I don't want an ugly cyber-looking anything, I don't want a truck, I don't want an SUV, I don't want an econobox, and I don't want to drive something with a center "TV" with no dashboard and lack of good controls. I am probably not alone.
The designs I would most likely want would be something Japanese like Infiniti, Acura, Lexus. But none offer anything and when they do, they would likely be SUVs and too big/expensive. Korean might be a second-place, and yet Kia has only SUV. Hyundai is all SUV except the Ioniq 6, which is kinda ugly rear and a little anemic for my taste, but need to explore more.
>"One in three said they were likely to buy a hybrid"
Yuck. Yet more cost, weight, complexity, and things to fail compared to ICE, and in some ways the worst of both (ICE only or EV only). No thanks.
Fun with numbers! (Score:2)
There are a lot of EV sales number to look at. Which numbers are significant?
For example, consider Norway. It is the most successful EV market, far eclipsing China. However, BEV sales in Norway [europa.eu] over the past year actually dropped by 17%. Why is that not a worry? Because BEVs represent 90% of all cars sold in Norway and BEVs as a percentage of all cars sold increased. However, the total number of BEVs dropped because the total number of cars dropped.
Separately, the OP mentions that 38% of US EV owners
bogus posts abound (Score:3)
Waiting for better batteries (Score:3)
I think (and most everyone agrees) that the next leap forward with EV technology is better batteries that are physically smaller and lighter than currently, charge faster and are less susceptible to battery fires.
Hence the reason why CATL, BYD, SK Innovation, Samsung SDI, Panasonic, and even Toyota and Tesla are spending massive fortunes on future generation battery technologies. If they finally make solid-state battery technology work reasonably reliably with the ability to survive several thousand charging cycles, then that breakthrough to accelerate the transition to EV cars that could go over 500 km (310 miles) in on charge, be physically smaller than today's batteries and charge from 0 to 90 percent charge in well under 12 minutes.
The wealthy have bought their EVs (Score:3)
The wealthy who want one, have already bought their EVs (many as a secondary or even third car only). The majority of the middle class (as far as it still exists) is still waiting for EV prices to become competitive, the lower income classes - if they even can afford a new car which most don't - are waiting for EVs to become outright cheap.
Then there are those who only can (or want to) afford used cars. Those are waiting for the prices to come down even further as the outlook seems to be headed that way. They are also concerned about the remaining battery life of a used EV.
And then there are those who don't want EVs for whatever personal reasons. They won't buy them until they can't buy anything else.
In Germany there is also the issue of charging costs. They have gone up significantly for all public charging stations to the point where the price is on par with fuel. So if you can't charge at home or at work - preferably for free from your own solar panels - there isn't much incentive to buy an EV.
Oh, and then the German government recently scrapped the previously substantial subsidies for buying EVs. Oddly enough EVs haven't become that much more expensive after that.
Re: (Score:3)
Batteries only EVs are heading into oblivion because the whole concept doesn't make any sense at all just like carrying dead weight around doesn't make any sense at all. Trolley powered electric cars would be fine although if the grid was ever able to support that.
IMO, automakers should mostly sell vehicles similar to the BMW i3 with the range extender option: A PHEV with about 80 miles of battery range and a tiny 2-cylinder gasoline engine that would mostly be used for road trips. (Maybe scale the engine up a bit for full-sized trucks and SUVs.)
I'm not sure why that got discontinued. Maybe it was the butt-ugly styling, but that could be fixed. It seems that they had some issues with not getting government incentives that were targeted towards pure BEVs, but I think
Re: Batteries only EVs are heading into oblivion (Score:2)
EVs are acting as economists expect ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Batteries only EVs are heading into oblivion
EVs are acting as economists expect. There is not one market, there are five, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]. Each with different means and different needs, wants, and concerns. You need to make sure you have a product/market fit for each. To simplify things let group these into two, early adopters and the man market.
The short story is that EVs have sold pretty much only to the early adopters market, and they are now trying to figure out how to sell to the main market. Transitioning from early adopters to main is a notoriously difficult process. Saturating the early adopters before you've come up with a persuasive product market fit for the main market is a fairly common thing. Many companies have failed at this point, or for the big automakers, to see a particular EV line fail would not be a surprise. Unlike a startup, the big automakers will likely survive despite a product line failing, and someday in the future, they will have something the main market finds practical and reasonable priced. But that will be at a pace defined by science, engineering and consumer behavior. Not politics or wishful thinking.
Recent EVs have a great product market fit for the early adopters. Early adopters are inherently willing to spend money on unproven things. They have more money and can afford the expense of an EV. They tend to have their own home which can be upgraded with a charger. They essentially plug in every night and have a full charge every morning. They don't need to hunt down *working* chargers during the day. They have very little range anxiety as a result. The cars are sheltered from the weather and are less vulnerable to extreme cold overnight. And their publicized cross country attempts have largely been Tesla owners at Tesla chargers. Typically maintained and working, and without too much competition during the early days of Tesla sales.
Sadly, EVs are a poor market fit for the mass market. Here people tend to have less money and are (1) more conservative in their choices and want proven tech and (2) can't afford the higher costs of an EV. They are less likely to have a home charger and are more reliant on public chargers. The recent stories of troublesome cross country trips by auto company CEOs, too many broken chargers, ramp up to their aversion to paying a lot of money to be a beta tester, and their fears of routine inconvenience of crowding at working chargers during their busy days. Do these people aspire to one day have an EV, probably, they just don't see a good economical choice yet.
Re:EVs are acting as economists expect ... (Score:4, Insightful)
The fact is that the entire world is moving toward EVs and a phaseout of fossil fueled vehicles. While we can attempt to protect our market in the short-term, the rest of the world is still going to transition. The world will take those cheap Chinese EVs over expensive American gas guzzlers.
The more we continue to support fossil fuels, the more China will advance beyond us, the more the world will leave us behind, and the more we'll be relegated to the past.
Past the time where we should insist on fair trade (Score:2)
Biden recently put a 100% tariff on EVs from China. The reason is that they're selling the vehicles for $12,000.
The reason is predatory economic behavior by China, yet again. Maybe this time we won't be stupid enough to let them.
Once upon a time we tolerated an unfair trade policies by China because we considered them a developing nation and hoped that interaction with the west would moderate them politically. That 1960/70s thinking failed as evidenced by Tiananmen Square in 1989. Yet we continued to accept unfair trade since the priveleged class in the US was making a lot of money off of China. We are long past t
Re: Past the time where we should insist on fair t (Score:3)
Unfortunately, we have a climate crisis. Tariffs on EVs, solar panels, and other green tech aren't going to help with that.
If you think China is bad, why aren't the tariffs applied to everything they export ? It makes no sense to single out green tech.
Toxic wasteland in Mongolia for cheaper EV is US (Score:2)
Unfortunately, we have a climate crisis.,
That's a second reason we should stop treating China like a developing nation and being exempt from many of the proposed climate accords
That and their being the number one polluter in the world, or course some of that pollution is really ours. As we export production we export its related pollution.
Part of China's cost savings is the fact that they are free to pollute. In contrast manufacturing in the US and EU will be much cleaner for the environment.
Or do you not mind turning Mongolia into a toxi
Re: (Score:3)
I am reminded of the Bhopal disaster, for example.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's assume their predatory behavior is causing the cars to be 50% cheaper (which would cost them *tens* of billions of dollars to do.
That would mean the "real" price would be $24,000.
The U.S. market is tapped out. Food is up 25% , housing is up 400%, cars (ice or EV) are up 200 to 300%. People are cutting back on streaming channels, clothing, eating out, etc. etc. etc.
The U.S. ICE market is also in the doldrums right now. Interest rates are too high and predatory pricing by oligarchies in the U.S. ha
Re: (Score:2)
Let's assume their predatory behavior is causing the cars to be 50% cheaper (which would cost them *tens* of billions of dollars to do.
That $12K price is the price in China. In the EU market, where these cars are already available they are more expensive and 20--25% cheaper.
Cars are simply too expensive in the U.S. and we can't subsidize the rest of the world any more.
Do you recall not so long ago when we "had to" bail out GM because the US economy depended upon it? The jobs and GM and suppliers were "absolutely necessary" for the economy? So now we can allow China to use predatory tactics (gov't manufacturing subsidies, lack of pollution controls on manufacturing, near slave labor, etc) to undercut US manufacturing to force US compa
Re: (Score:3)
Food may be up 25% (or more), but housing is NOT up 400% except in maybe a few cherry picked examples. The average house price is up around 25-30%, a little less in already expensive markets and a little more in previously inexpensive markets. Cars are definitely not up 300% (i'm starting to think you may be bad at math). From 2020 to 2024 a Toyota Corolla has gone up 2k in MSRP (that's 10%), a Honda CRV has gone up 4k (15%), a Ford F150 has gone up $7k (20%), and a Porsche 911 Carrera has gone up 16k (1
Re: (Score:2)
The reason is predatory economic behavior by China, yet again.
How dare they invest in their economy and have the factories make what people want to buy.
They are perfectly free to do that. And fair trade means nothing more than the rules and policies apply in both directions. For example we act in a predatory manner with their industry and they do not do so with ours.
Why can't they be more like our command economy where the car companies and government tell the customers what they want instead.
LOL. If we had a command economy people would not be ignoring the administration's insistence that we all get EVs.
Why can't they just stay poor and make cheap stuff for us to consume.
When they conform to the same environmental regulations as the US and EU perhaps we can. Right now we use China to greenwash our consumption, the related pollution "exported" to chi
Re: (Score:2)
I came here to say precisely this. If I could buy a brand new EV for $12K I would absolutely do that. At that price point I am quite sure that lots of other Americans would do the same. Unfortunately, it does not appear that we are going to get that chance.
Re: EVs are acting as economists expect ... (Score:2)
Indeed. There are no new cars on the market in the US for anywhere near that price, EV or otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
I came here to say precisely this. If I could buy a brand new EV for $12K I would absolutely do that. At that price point I am quite sure that lots of other Americans would do the same.
Except the mileage fears are a lot worse. And the charging problems are not addressed (and worse due to milage). And now we have the bad PR from the lack of pollution controls from the manufacturing in China, and perhaps some additional bad PR over safety. So no, still not ready for the main market.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:EVs are acting as economists expect ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Sadly, EVs are a poor market fit for the mass market.
For you. You see you think there's one market, but each market is ultimately local to where people travel. There's hundreds. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with EVs and they are a perfectly fine fit for mass adoption as well in many places around the world. The USA seems to have a charging infrastructure issue (as well as too many conservatives huffing tailpipe fumes like it contains nicotine), in my part of the world the situation is very different where most of the population already lives within 100m of charging infrastructure. As a result we're far ahead of USA adoption of EVs despite having virtually no private garages or off street parking for the masses.
Markets vary by country, and even vary by state / city within countries.
Re: (Score:3)
Sadly, EVs are a poor market fit for the mass market.
For you. You see you think there's one market, ...
LOL. I literally said there are 5, but simplified it to 2 for discussion purposes. While providing a link to the 5 for those who can read.
but each market is ultimately local to where people travel. There's hundreds.
You misunderstand, try reading. The markets are not geographic, they are characterized by consumer behavior. In each geographic market you will have these multiple consumer behavior based (sub)markets.
There's nothing fundamentally wrong with EVs and they are a perfectly fine fit for mass adoption ...
Except for the numerous cited problems that keep consumers in the main market waiting for further improvements. Again, please try reading posts you respond to.
The USA seems to have a charging infrastructure issue ...
And the variou
Re: Batteries only EVs are heading into oblivion (Score:2)
Re: Batteries only EVs are heading into oblivion (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You don't seem to have a great grasp of how life is for the majority of people. My commute for work is 130-140 miles round trip, so what I NEED for my normal commute would be a range of 200 miles just to be safe. When you see EVs that have a 350+ range on them, that's easily enough for my commuting needs. For those who regularly go away, those are the ones who won't be served with a purely electric vehicle right now.
The majority of people don't have the time or money to just spend the money to go on t
Re: (Score:3)
Thanks! Your incontrovertible facts and figures, together with your logical arguments, have persuaded me that you must be right.
Re:Batteries only EVs are heading into oblivion (Score:4, Informative)
Lithium is very rare. I
What's amazing is you clearly tried to verify that very silly claim. Are you just bad at math?
Carbon makes up about 0.02% of the volume of the Earth's crust, Lithium about 0.002%. In more concrete terms, Carbon makes up about 200ppm, Lithium 20ppm. Put simply, for every 10 Carbons, there is one Lithium.
How would you describe the rarity of Carbon?
It is between Cobalt and Scandium on the list of element abundance on Earth.
It seems you really to have trouble with basic math:
Lithium: 0.002%
Cobalt: 0.0025%
Scandium: 0.0022%
0.002 0.0022 0.0025
That's from Wikipedia, where I assume you got your numbers. Though the NIH (using numbers from the U.S. Department of Energy's Jefferson Labs) agrees, estimating Scandium at 22mg/kg, Cobalt at 25mg/kg, Lithium at 20mg/kg, and Carbon at 200mg/kg.
Both Cobalt and Scandium are slightly less rare than Lithium, which isn't rare at all.
Re: Multiple factors make 100% EV's not ready (Score:2)
1. There have been some cheap EVs and PHEVs. My 2015 Volt was quite cheap. The 2022/2023 Bolt also were.
But now $10k cheap.
2-3 are related, I would count it as one item. L1/L2 chargers are fairly widespread. But L3, not as much.
4. This is true unfortunately. It's not just due to batteries being colder, but also using electric heat.
5. This is a red herring.
3.3 million EVs have been added to the power grid in the last decade or so. There were near zero before that.
The grid has been fine, and will be fine.
A fe
Re: (Score:2)
2. Meh! plenty of Youtube videos prove otherwise.
3. Meh! again. only a few will be troubled by this because most people can work out how to do something else while charging. Most peoples bladder range is less that an EV battery and with kids in the car you be stopping frequently
4. Winter affects the bad efficiency of ICE vehicles too.
5. The grid is fine and the
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
So long as you ignore the hundreds of billions in costs associated with climate change.... things that directly impact your insurances, city taxes, loss of productivity, increasing food prices.
Now do the trillions in costs of the proposals to reduce it
Re:More realistic take (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You may not have to: sea level rise isn't evenly distributed due to tide, current, and prevailing weather patterns. Some regions will experience very little rise. So your specific region may not need flood defences for a hundred years or so.
You will however be forced to pay increased taxes to deal with the effects on regions that do experience them. If you are OK with that then yes, no need for you to do anything.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Worse though is other countries will be hoarding rare earth minerals etc so they can build better tech for themselves.
The costs of the USA falling behind are much much higher long term
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It will never be "too hot" in US as a whole for foreseeable future. That's anti-scientific doomerism. Or alternatively, that's the weather propaganda, where 20 C on weather maps used to be marked in green and is now dark red.
There is indeed propaganda going on, but it's not what you think it is. Someone you trust for information has fed you that line about 20 degrees C on weather maps, and it's utterly incorrect. The colour maps have changed over the years, but to make them accessible for colour-blind people - no other agenda. More info here: https://blog.metoffice.gov.uk/... [metoffice.gov.uk]
So, given that some of your beliefs about this topic have been shown to be attempts to manipulate you to get you angry and dismissive about the topic in ge
Re: (Score:2)
Whereas net zero would basically erase industrial economy.
That's incorrect. Net zero would mean heavy industrialization for the carbon removal.
Re: (Score:2)
This plus grid engineering first (Score:3)
Get it right, build the grid reliability and radically increase electrical generation and transmission first, re
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Checks mpg, you are full of shit. (Score:2)
My 4WD, towing capacity 3.5 tons ( I usually two up to 1.5 tons), has a lifetime average fuel consumption of 28.4 mpg
Re:More chargers, battery replacement, tires (Score:4, Interesting)
OK, time to run through the maths on battery replacements again. Let's use my shiny new EQA as an example. It has a range of a little over 300 miles. Let's call it 300 for simplicity. Conservative estimates are that the battery will have reduced to 80% state of health (SoH, ie what it can achieve of its original range) after about 750 full charge-discharge cycles. Could last longer, very unlikely to last less (clever battery management systems see to that). So after 100% SoH after 0 cycles, 80% after 750, let's approximate with 90% the whole way through. How many miles is that?
90% * 300 * 750 = 202,500 miles. Let's say I lived in the US. Average distance a US car is driven daily is 40 miles (https://www.kbb.com/car-advice/average-miles-driven-per-year/#:~:text=The%20average%20miles%20driven%20per,recent%20Department%20of%20Transportation%20statistics.)
202.5k/40 = 5062.5 days, or more than 13.5 years. So after 13.5 years of driving, the battery will now take you 240 miles instead of 300. If that's not enough range for you at that point, you could sell it and buy a new car, or you could replace the battery.
How much will that cost you? In 2023, a battery big enough for an EQA (74kWh) would have cost about $12k (pack price of $139/kWh plus margins). But here's the thing: in 2013, that battery would have cost about $60k (pack price of $780/kWh plus margins). We can't be sure how long or how far battery prices will continue to fall, but they *will* continue to fall substantially as research pays off, scale grows, etc. If I had to guess, I reckon that size pack will probably cost about $3k in today's money, 13.5 years from now.
And once again, this is an *optional* change. For many people, 240 miles will turn out to be more than good enough, especially as the charging network grows out more and more.