Global Sales of Combustion Engine Cars Have Peaked (ourworldindata.org) 247
Our World in Data: To decarbonize road transport, the world must move away from petrol and diesel cars and towards electric vehicles and other forms of low-carbon transport.
This transition has already started. In fact, global sales of combustion engine cars are well past the peak and are now falling.
As you can see in the chart, global sales peaked in 2018. This is calculated based on data from the International Energy Agency. Bloomberg New Energy Finance estimates this peak occurred one year earlier, in 2017.
Sales of electric cars, on the other hand, are growing quickly.
This transition has already started. In fact, global sales of combustion engine cars are well past the peak and are now falling.
As you can see in the chart, global sales peaked in 2018. This is calculated based on data from the International Energy Agency. Bloomberg New Energy Finance estimates this peak occurred one year earlier, in 2017.
Sales of electric cars, on the other hand, are growing quickly.
Couldn't be (Score:2, Insightful)
I couldn't possibly be the fact that car prices have gotten stupidly insane expensive now could it? Add to that insurance companies raping the shit out of consumers.
Re:Couldn't be (Score:5, Informative)
I couldn't possibly be the fact that car prices have gotten stupidly insane expensive now could it?
No, you couldn't.
FTFS you didn't finish reading: "Sales of electric cars, on the other hand, are growing quickly."
Add to that insurance companies raping the shit out of consumers.
It costs more to insure an EV [autodealer...gazine.com] than an ICEV, so again, no.
ooh flamebait (Score:2)
How appropriate in a world in which Tesla is still selling Cybertrucks. Doors which automatically lock in case of a battery fire are the best!
No wait, I lied. They can't sell them even with a brand new seven thousand dollar price cut.
I'm betting they still won't be able to even if they double that.
Re: (Score:2)
"How appropriate in a world in which Tesla is still selling Cybertrucks."
A 'world'?
In dozens of countries you need a trucker license to drive it if it isn't forbidden completely for safety reasons like in the EU and the UK and in AU/NZ, India, Japan etc, they didn't even try to sell it.
Re: (Score:2)
In dozens of countries you need a trucker license to drive it
ROFL!
Re: (Score:2)
Not that kind of trucker. Not a semi rig.
The rule in the UK is that an ordinary driver's licence (Category B) means "You can drive vehicles up to 3,500kg maximum authorised mass (MAM) with up to 8 passenger seats." That mass includes passengers and luggage, which is why the Cybertruck is risky. 5 male adults and you're over the MAM limit.
Next category up is C1, which means "You can drive vehicles between 3,500 and 7,500kg MAM (with a trailer up to 750kg)."
We have these oh-so-effete rules you're LOLing about
Re: (Score:2)
We have these oh-so-effete rules you're LOLing about because of this other rule: KE = 1/2mv2.
You should sort by velocity rather than mass then.
Re: (Score:2)
We have these oh-so-effete rules you're LOLing about because of this other rule: KE = 1/2mv2.
You should sort by velocity rather than mass then.
The velocity is already limited, though it's called a "speed limit."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The UK restricts speeds differentially on motorways on the basis of mass as well as velocity, because the m matters even though the v matters more
Plus, not to state the bleeding obvious, you can't kill a pedestrian or a cyclist on the motorway because they're not using them
Plus the larger the vehicle, the worse the sightlines, by and large
Plus, the UK driving test already tests for the ability to drive on a dual carriageway safely (not quite a motorway, but a fast road). It's much more rigorous as a test th
Re: (Score:2)
We absolutely should and kind of do have license classes for different kinds of vehicle. We have that here only for heavy vehicles, you can drive anything else on a basic license anywhere. Most states will also let you drive some very large vehicles on your basic license when converted to an RV. California will allow you to operate "any housecar 40 feet or less [ca.gov]" and/or a combination (with a single trailer) up to 65' on your basic class C license. We then also have commercial and non-commercial A and B licen
Re: (Score:3)
I[t] couldn't possibly be the fact that car prices have gotten stupidly insane expensive now could it?
FTS:
Sales of electric cars, on the other hand, are growing quickly.
That said, overall car sales are down which is probably more about economics as you suggest. While EV sales are up, that means it's a larger piece of a smaller pie.
Re:Couldn't be (Score:5, Insightful)
On a decade by decade basis, total global car ownership has gone up exponentially up over the century leading up to the present, with per capita car ownership going up roughly linearly. However in the past ten years the growth rate of car ownership has slowed to almost linear. Part of this price surely -- not just of cars, but of everything, particularly with supply chain disruptions from the pandemic and from the Ukraine war.
But I suspect this is a multi-factorial phenomenon, and I wouldn't discount the contribution of radically lower fertility rates in advanced countries, where disproportionately more cars are purchased. Not only is the number of buyers not growing, having children is a driver of car purchases.
Re: (Score:2)
A Nissan Versa is 18k. After inflation that's around as cheap as it's ever been to purchase a new car. Plus it's far cheaper to maintain and has a longer life, meaning better re-sale value, ultimately making it cheaper than a car from 50+ years ago.
Re: (Score:3)
Sadly, Nissan may not exist in a year or two.
They're in talks with selling to Honda, largely because the Japanese government wants them to, but Honda is only interested if they can figure out how to make a profit within three years.
They did well *for a while* with a former CEO but last I knew he was hiding in Lebanon to avoid Japan's justice system.
There's some chance that Renault will help them out. Nissan owns like 35% of Renault and now has voting rights with their stock. But, realistically, it's either
Re: (Score:3)
I couldn't possibly be the fact that car prices have gotten stupidly insane expensive now could it?
It couldn't, because it was the cast only in US and some of Europe, because they banned cheap Chinese cars.
For the rest of the world (i.e. global sales), it is insanely cheap Chinese EV, that goes as cheap as USD10K or less, that drove ICE cars off the cliff.
Re: (Score:2)
EV sales are up about 15 to 25%
ICE car sales are down 5 to 10%
Math
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that small, cheap city cars are either not for sale anymore, or their price is insane: 15.950 â for a Fiat Panda without any optionals, not even a car radio or infotainment it's high. An Aygo is â 18.950 because you can have it only with the fake SUV "X" design.
Five years ago
Re: (Score:3)
Only real manufacturer in the USA maybe, BYD is even bigger in China.
Re: (Score:3)
This is hilariously out of date and US-centric. Sales of other EVs are growing relative to Tesla, and Tesla is smaller than BYD, and the gap is growing rapidly.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Couldn't be (Score:5, Informative)
You are commenting on an article called "Global Sales of Combustion Engine Cars Have Peaked". In case you were unaware, articles with the word Global in the title are not, in fact, about the US only, which means that if you comment as though the article was only about the US, you just look like an idiot. Is that the impression you were keen to give to readers?
Re: (Score:2)
America really is a bimodal distribution of wonderful people and almighty cocks
Re:Couldn't be (Score:5, Informative)
... or that the global economy is slowing down, or that car ownership in general is more expensive as you point out. Of course, I say let the best cars win no matter what tech they use. Let the marketplace & consumers decide, not the government. If folks want to buy EV's, no sweat. If folks want to buy ICE cars, let them.
You say this like there's no public significance to the choice between ICE and EV. The whole fucking point is that ICE vehicles are much worse for us: much higher carbon intensity, other tailpipe pollutants such as NOx, noisy (a massively under-rated cause of damage to human and animal health), smelly, dirty. It's not like this is a neutral choice.
The real debate is if governments have the right to "shape" consumer choices with policy, subsidies, and the force of law in the aggressive ways they've been doing using taxpayer money.
This is exactly what's been happening for decades with ICE vehicles. Gas subsidies, oil wars, gas station investment programmes, government R&D funding for ICE, bailouts for the ICE manufacturers, uncosted externalities, the list goes on and on, and absolutely dwarfs the size of support for EVs.
Also, just to remind you of the basics of civics: democratic governments don't have rights, they have powers, which they are granted via the democratic process (including the explicit limiting of the scope of powers by the US Constitution). It makes no sense at all to ask if "governments have the right" to do anything. It makes sense to ask if governments are acting ultra vires in their policy choices, but the short answer is no, they're not. It also would make sense to ask whether the people *ought* to have granted governments the powers to make these kinds of policy choices. But why on earth not? Governments make transport policy choices all the time. For example, they decide on super-detailed aspects of vehicle design such as the degree of sharpness of the angles of the external surface of a vehicle (the Cybertruck's sharp external angles are too dangerous and this is one of the reasons they're banned in European markets). Saying, for example, that "vehicles on roads in our country must not produce more than X grams of CO2e per mile travelled" is a perfectly legitimate policy decision.
Re: Couldn't be (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The U.S. federal gas tax is been 18.3 cents/gallon. And it has been stuck (frozen, embalmed, vitrified) at that level since 1993. Mostly the gas tax pays into the Highway Trust Fund - the main federal funding mechanism for roads and bridges. Inflation has decreased the value of $1 by 55% over the past 32 years - meaning that $1 of gas tax revenue in 2025 has the purchasing power of $0.45 back in 1993. (Construction costs have outpaced general infla
Re: Couldn't be (Score:3)
Do you think the US would have spent so many billions or even trillions fighting in, deploying in or patrolling the Persian Gulf if it didnâ(TM)t have oil?
Re: (Score:2)
No I'm not "acting like EVs are the holy grail". I'm acting like EVs are a *better* public policy choice than ICE.
It would really help your argue your case if you knew the specifics:
- EV carbon payback period for the increased intensity of manufacture is about 16k miles. Lifetime emissions is what matters
- Mining lithium and cobalt is literally orders of magnitude less damaging to ecosystems than fossil fuel extraction. Not least because ICE vehicles require a *continual supply* of fossil fuels, a volume th
Re: (Score:3)
Horseshit.
1. EVs and ICE vehicles produce near identical amounts of tyre PM, stupid articles notwithstanding. EVs weigh on average about 30% more than equivalent ICE vehicles, but if you actually want to reduce vehicle weight, the most important thing is to shift purchasing back towards smaller vehicles like sedans or, god save us, superminis as we have in Europe. A Renault 5, a European supermini EV, weighs 1.4 tons compared to an SUV which will be much closer to 2 tons
2. EVs produce far less brake dust be
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Couldn't be (Score:5, Insightful)
>>The real debate is if governments have the right to "shape" consumer choices with policy, subsidies, and the force of law in the aggressive ways they've been doing using taxpayer money.
I agree. The government should stop subsidizing fossil fuel extraction.
Re:Couldn't be (Score:4, Insightful)
The real debate is if governments have the right to "shape" consumer choices with policy, subsidies, and the force of law in the aggressive ways they've been doing using taxpayer money.
What debate? Of course, they do. You need subsidies, because get this, gas cars already have a stranglehold on the market. They have these things called gas stations.
In order for EV's to compete, they would need the same sort of dominance. This will never happen, because most wealthy private energy companies have little to no reason to help a competing energy source. This is why you have subsidies to begin with. It helps the consumer in the end, those mean old gas companies will have competition if the EV market turns out well. You want competition, and not just some orange neanderthal specious way of thinking that best car win. A gas car will always win, not because it's better but because of the reasons I just stated.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure if EVs are going to win in the end.
There are a number of viable gasoline alternatives that are reasonably close to carbon neutral. They'll need to be scaled up and there are people working on that exact problem right now. They don't require any vehicle modifications, meaning they work in existing cars.
Sure, ICE has other downsides, but I wouldn't be surprised if we just ended up switching to something like that.
Don't get me wrong, I haven't got any problems with EVs as a solution that work for
Re: (Score:2)
Alternate fuels seem like a good idea until you look at the economics of it. The problem is simply that the ICE is just too damn inefficient at turning fuel into usable work. Some form of input energy is always going to be required to manufacture synthetic fuels, so they're always going to end up being significantly more expensive than just running a vehicle directly on electricity in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
Alternate fuels seem like a good idea until you look at the economics of it.
My assumption is that that will be a solved problem. There's a program in one of the S. American countries (name forgotten) that has Porche buy-in and is supposed to scale effectively and efficiently.
It will not solve all the problems with ICE power but it should be carbon neutral.
Ah, it's Chile and I believe has even been used some in racing. They're calling it an 'eFuel'. Other OEMs have similar interests, including some existing oil companies.
Re: (Score:2)
" Ah, it's Chile "
I guess they can't charge their EV's when theres a power blackout (see story on front page)
"I believe has even been used some in racing."
But it won't be cheap enough for people to use for ordinary transport.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps not immediately. I guess that it doesn't require a large footprint, so you could end up with a fairly local company making the alternative fuel.
Many, many things have been a part of racing but too expensive for mass production only to end up being so common that you just assume a modern vehicles have that feature, from ABS to ESC. Once upon a time, radios and televisions were luxuries - never mind the price of computers.
There are also going to be a whole lot of wealthy people who want to keep their
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Meanwhile Nikola has gone out of business. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=twdQH3cAnug [youtube.com]
Re: Couldn't be (Score:2)
This devotion to the "market" is starting to reach cult like creepiness.
The market exists to make money, not solve problems. It is merely coincidence when the market makes money solving problems.
Re: (Score:2)
When your markets crash for arbitrary psycholical panicky reasons, who's there to bail them out, if not Uncle Fed?
Re: Couldn't be (Score:2)
Go to Mexico and choose what "works". They have shit for regulations. People choose what's cheap not what works, that's the fundamental problem with your plan. You put profit first, consumers put a deal first.
This is the same circle of stupid we see in open source where people don't want open source software, they want THAT software open sourced. Countries with no or lax regulations are a dime a dozen but you don't want a country with no regulations, you want THIS country with no regulations. Of course.
Re:Couldn't be (Score:4, Informative)
Subsidies for oil compamies:
https://www.imf.org/en/Blogs/A... [imf.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Let the marketplace & consumers decide, not the government. If folks want to buy EV's, no sweat. If folks want to buy ICE cars, let them.
The problem is that the marketplace is only concerned with profit. And consumers? Most of 'em don't even realize that ICE vehicles blow over half the energy content in a gallon of fuel straight out the radiator as waste heat. Sure, the price difference between an ICE car and an EV used to buy a lot of gas, but that price gap has closed in recent years.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course govt has the right. It's in the Constitution, clear as day. What part of "regulate commerce between the states" don't you understand? Article 1 clause 8 section 3.
Should they? That's a legitimate question. You can have a policy debate about whether the govt should (I'm firmly on the yes side). But can the
Re: Couldn't be (Score:2)
If folks want to buy American, no sweat. If folks want to buy Chinese cars, let them.
The real debate is if governments have the right to "shape" consumer choices with policy, subsidies, and the force of law in the aggressive ways they've been doing using taxpayer money.
They do.
Underlying reality (Score:4, Informative)
For those that don't know what happened, PRC has made it national security policy to move as much personal mobility as possible to EVs in preparation for blockade of oil shipments from Persian Gulf in response for attack on Taiwan.
Everywhere else, numbers are about the same after pandemic dip.
Re:Underlying reality (Score:5, Insightful)
Why bother with a stupid conspiracy theory when there is a much simpler and more likely explanation: money.
Their car industry is booming, they supply batteries to foreign automotive manufacturers too, and the limiting factor at the moment is how fast they can make them. They got the jump on us, again.
Oh right, it's better to concoct some daft reason that feeds into the "China bad" hysteria, rather than admit we are losing.
Re:Underlying reality (Score:4, Insightful)
It might even help them, but that doesn't change the fact that you are just distracting from the real story here.
While we were too busy rubbishing EVs and slowly testing the waters, they raced ahead of us and took the lion's share of the rewards. Instead of competing, the US actually seems to be going backwards.
Re: (Score:2)
"retake"?
PRC has never controlled Taiwan...
If anything it would be Taiwan retaking the mainland.
Re: (Score:2)
You are arguing de facto control, And you're correct in your assessment if that was relevant. What I'm talking about however is a de jure issue.
In case you're unaware, both PRC and ROC lay claim to entirety of China. They simply disagree who is the rightful leader. This means both claim to be inheritors of historic China. So if territory was at any point held by Chinese Empire, whether real or mythological like the formerly nine dash line and currently ten dash line (yes, they actually added another dash ju
Re: (Score:2)
Amimojo has reached new height in denial of reality. Apparently noting that PRC has well documented plans to retake Taiwan and is preparing for obvious consequences of this actions is "a conspiracy theory".
Peak internet communism.
Could you share a url? Bonus points if you exclude right wing fringe sites.
Re: (Score:2)
It is a plan: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] This particular video is about the signs- but he definitely believes it is going to happen. Couldn't find the exact video, but this guy is well sourced and admits when he makes mistakes
Re: (Score:2)
Well, they know Trump wouldn't condemn it or come to Taiwan's aid, considering he has his own territorial expansion plans. If they're going to do it, the next four years would be the best time.
Re: (Score:2)
Lol, random youtuber.
Re:Underlying reality (Score:5, Insightful)
Or possibly, it's that electric cars are obviously the future, and China didn't have a leading ICE industry to attempt to hold back the tide and prevent the inevitable, so they went all in on electric.
It's way too hard to compete on with very very established ICE makers, and why bother? You can at best match them with huge investment and that will be written off when the future actually arrives. Meanwhile the EV tech stack is wide open and underdeveloped so they can get a lot more for their money including being that established player.
It's short-sighted and stupid to back away from EVs now, the car manufacturers are trading short term gain, or maybe staying level for being easy behind in the near future. It's crazy short term thinking.
Re: Underlying reality (Score:2)
EVs will be the future but not yet. Until governments sort out the hopeless charging situation for those of us who dont have any off street parking or even a parking spot on our street then I and many many others just dont want one. Where I live theres a grand total of 2 chargers within a square mile containing maybe 20K people.
Re: Underlying reality (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because expensive and potentially ruinous initial chicken and egg situations are avoided by public companies so need government intervention to get the ball rolling.
They may be right (Score:3)
Re:They may be right (Score:4, Interesting)
Other parts of the world are not invested in the same stupid culture wars about EVs, and so are much more open to flipping to / starting with EVs. And they're pretty happy to buy more locally, eg from Chinese and Korean OEMs
Re: (Score:2)
Smarter than you, honeychile. But then, turds on the street are smarter than you
Oh, shut up already. (Score:2)
We've heard this so many times already that mentioning it boders on cliche these days. Meanwhile, some of the major manufacturers started doing a U-turns and going back to ICEs, or hybrids at the very least.
Re: Oh, shut up already. (Score:2)
Just go to the search box on top of the page and search for ICE, peak or related keywords. I'm not going to do it for you.
And this is just Slashdot.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.reuters.com/busine... [reuters.com]
Put another way, over 80% of new car sales are ICE (Score:2)
With big direct government incentives to consumers global sales EV sales have made it to 18% of new car sales. The other 82% are ICE.
I'm guessing well over 90% of all cars on the roads globally are ICE.
I love my EV (Score:2)
It's better than a gas car in every way
Yes, charging on a road trip takes a bit longer, but it's an excellent time to relax and avoid highway hypnosis
New sales vs installed base (Score:2)
EVs are being pushed hard, but are they displacing the installed base of combustion engine cars?
I looked at an EV when I was last in the market for a car. No model on offer filled my needs, so I didn't buy one. This situation hasn't changed in the nine years since then.
...laura
I would piss on a Tesla if it was on fire (Score:2)
Hilux Champ (Score:2)
The Hilux Champ starts at $12K.
That's less than the replacement battery cost in some EV's.
When Toyota & Samsung's new battery tech hits in two years we're gonna see some serious market upheavals.
But the resale value of lithium/cobalt cars is going to crater.
For a while people will think the entire EV category is all massive depreciation, not understanding the stepwise change.
Maybe I can pick up a Leaf for $1500 though.
Total Car sales Peaked in 2018 (Score:2)
The graph shows total car sales peaking in 2018. The reasons for that are clearly not a shift to electric cars. Its possible electric cars replaced some sales of IICE vehicles, but its also possible they simply propped up overall sale with additional cars beyond what would have sold if they weren't available.
The only real measure that matters for climate change is emissions. New emissions may have finally stopped increasing. But there are already too many emissions in the atmosphere and we have been adding
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Musk was not a co-founder of Tesla like him claimed. He lied. One can argue he improved sales, though, via bullshit & spin, his forte.
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
Musk was not a co-founder of Tesla like him claimed. He lied. One can argue he improved sales, though, via bullshit & spin, his forte.
Quicker to say, Elon Musk is a liar and will always be a liar.
Re: We owe a big thank you... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Name one person who isn't a liar
Proportionality is important. At the bottom of the scale there are your garden-variety occasional liars, and at (or perhaps over) the top there are Trump- and Musk-level compulsive liars who only rarely tell the truth, and then it's usually accidental.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: We owe a big thank you... (Score:2)
Re: We owe a big thank you... (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:2)
Shh! This is a good thing!
We finally have the morons on the right wanting to buy EVs.
It's the silver lining!
Re: We owe a big thank you... (Score:2)
Re: We owe a big thank you... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
When people turn to insults, you know you've won the argument.
Re: We owe a big thank you... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, it's crazy to think that is an utter perversion that the richest man in the world makes decisions that kill the world's poorest. /s
About ~14,000 adults and ~1,500 children so far from just cutting one vital HIV treatment program over night.
https://pepfar.impactcounter.c... [impactcounter.com]
Food worth almost half a billion $ rotting in ports that wont feed the starving.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/mil... [yahoo.com]
It's beyond monstrous.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, PEPFAR’s helped people—26 million lives saved since 2003, per its own stats—but it’s also a tiny slice of USAID’s sprawl.
Baby; bathwater. Oh hell, it's hard to figure out which is which, so throw them both out.
Re: We owe a big thank you... (Score:2)
Re: We owe a big thank you... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't care what some cartoonist left strawman perceives.
I judge him by his actions. It's one thing to dismantle a department orderly through Congress, so that other organisations can fill in the void. It's an entirely different manner to simply stop funding overnight.
This killed people. And it is not difficult at all to judge him by his actions. This isn't rocket since or a trolley dilemma. This is as morally black and white as it gets.
Through his reckless administrative actions he killed scores of the wo
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
...to the pioneering efforts of Elon Musk and Tesla who proved that EVs can be commercially viable (and desirable).
Yes, it's too bad he went full Nazi. Not a huge surprise, but still too bad.
I decided he was a POS when he had his "pedo guy" moment. I mean, the one he's had so far, anyway.
Re: We owe a big thank you... (Score:2)
Being a ruthless business genius and a total dick are a surprisingly frequent combination.
Re: (Score:2)
Gas chambers are going to be bad for the environment. He'll be rolling out "electric chambers" I imagine.
Re: (Score:2)
First you get the Nazis than you get the gas chambers.
Good luck if you wait for the latter just to hedge against your confirmantion bias.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
"...to the pioneering efforts of Elon Musk and Tesla who proved that EVs can be commercially viable (and desirable)."
And showing us that is is possible to go from 0 to 1939 in under 3 seconds.
Re:We owe a big thank you... (Score:5, Interesting)
There's no doubt that Tesla played three key roles in developing EV markets: first, it demonstrated to developed world consumers that EVs could be desirable and aspirational (the Leaf was commercially successful but too quirky to be truly desirable and not at all aspirational); second, Tesla competed super-successfully with premium developed world OEMs eg Audi, Mercedes etc for that segment of the market, which was a huge profit centre, and in doing so, it shifted the market dynamics and drove those OEMs to innovate in the EV space; and third, Tesla did this partly by starting in a genuinely new place with its solutions, everything from the cabin to the infotainment UX to the mechanics of, eg, wiring harnesses.
But it's not sensible to ignore the fundamental advances made by Chinese OEMs in batteries, motors and vertical integration. That has shaped the EV market even more profoundly, because those technologies are used everywhere.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
Re: (Score:3)
I know it is a troll, and I hate Elon Musk as a (supposedly) human being, but I think you are kind of right here.
Electric cars existed way before Tesla, and Elon Musk wasn't even a founder. However the marketing was genius, and that's the kind of thing Elon Musk was really good at. While other EV manufacturers focused on the zero-emission, "green" aspect, Tesla focused on making what is essentially a toy for big boys. Fun to drive, plenty of gadgets, geeky names, etc... It was enough for people to want an e
Re: (Score:2)
After the failures of EV's car companies are going back to making gas engine vehicles. Do the research....
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/0... [nytimes.com]
https://www.wired.com/story/fo... [wired.com]
https://www.hagerty.com/media/... [hagerty.com]
https://electrek.co/2024/02/22... [electrek.co]
True, just like everybody went straight back to coal and steam back in the early 1960s.
Re: (Score:2)
True, just like everybody went straight back to coal and steam back in the early 1960s.
It has been the replacement for nuclear ever since.