Fully Electric Vehicle Sales In EU Overtake Petrol For First Time In December (yahoo.com) 92
Longtime Slashdot reader AmiMoJo shares a report from Reuters: Fully electric car sales in December overtook petrol for the first time in the European Union, even as policymakers proposed to loosen emissions regulations, data showed on Tuesday. U.S. battery-electric brand Tesla continued to lose market share to competitors including China's BYD and Europe's best-selling group Volkswagen, data from the European auto lobby ACEA showed.
Car sales throughout Europe sustained a sixth straight month of year-on-year growth, with overall registrations, a proxy for sales, hitting their highest volumes in five years in Europe in 2025, though they remained well below pre-pandemic levels. [...] December registrations of battery electric, plug-in hybrid and hybrid electric cars were up 51%, 36.7% and 5.8%, respectively, to account collectively for 67% of the bloc's registrations, up from 57.8% in December 2024.
Car sales throughout Europe sustained a sixth straight month of year-on-year growth, with overall registrations, a proxy for sales, hitting their highest volumes in five years in Europe in 2025, though they remained well below pre-pandemic levels. [...] December registrations of battery electric, plug-in hybrid and hybrid electric cars were up 51%, 36.7% and 5.8%, respectively, to account collectively for 67% of the bloc's registrations, up from 57.8% in December 2024.
Reuters used to be able to write an article... (Score:5, Informative)
The basic claim is correct. This article is more in depth and it has a graph with the trends. BEV and Petrol (aka gas) HAVE met. at 22.5% of registration (though Diesel is still 7% and is separate. HEV at 33% and PHEV at 10.7% rounding out their categories.). Plain ICE, gas and diesel are def going down.
But if you count HEV as "gas" well... HEV+plain-ICE is 62% vs BEV at 22.5% so...
https://autovista24.autovistag... [autovistagroup.com]
anyway, more power to them.
Re: (Score:3)
Just keeping it /. (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re: Just keeping it /. (Score:2)
Just like all the other articles on here since 2001
Re: Reuters used to be able to write an article.. (Score:3)
The dialect is called British English because it is spoken all over Britain and has been for centuries. The existence of Welsh, Cornish and two Gaelics does not negate this, as the spread of those languages has never really coincided with the national boundaries, particularly in Scotland.
The bigger question is why English is called English.
Re: (Score:2)
There is British English which uses -ise endings, and there is Oxford English which uses -ize but not exclusively.
Because spell checkers often default to US English, the waters are getting muddier now.
Re: (Score:3)
>"British English"? Is that some kind of cultural genocide, robbing England of its language?"
English is the lingua franca now. There is absolutely nothing wrong with saying "British English", it is done all the time to denote the English as used by Britain vs. other countries, which have some significant variations. Nobody denies that the central development of English came from England.
>"You know that each country in Britain has their own language, and the one from England is called English."
Englan
Re: Reuters used to be able to write an article.. (Score:1)
Re: Reuters used to be able to write an article... (Score:4, Interesting)
I know he was being a dick, but there really are meaningful differences between the autonomy of the four home nations of the UK and American states or Canadian provinces. The UK is an old and messy place, and it has four constituent countries / nations within a single state. For the purposes of relations with other nation-states, there’s primarily just the UK, but for day to day governance, it’s quite different.
Re: (Score:2)
>"there really are meaningful differences between the autonomy of the four home nations of the UK and American states or Canadian provinces."
Indeed, there are differences. I am not an expert in the differences, but would guess the autonomy of a USA State is actually much greater than that of a British sub-nation. Especially true before Britain left the EU (which put yet a further authority above them). I decided to give AI a try at that and got this:
"A U.S. state generally has more autonomy than a Bri
Re: (Score:2)
It’s not particularly accurate from AI. It will be a bit exhausting to get into all the detail, but for example the devolved institutions are recognised as legislatures of constituent nations with competence over culturally foundational areas such as language, culture and identity policy, reflecting national-status recognition that US states do not constitutionally enjoy. For example, Wales imposing statutory Welsh-language duties across public life.
More broadly, the differences between life in, say,
Re: (Score:2)
>"Itâ(TM)s not particularly accurate from AI."
Things rarely are :)
>"recognised as legislatures of constituent nations with competence over culturally foundational areas such as language, culture and identity policy, reflecting national-status recognition"
Can you say "Quebec"?
>"that US states do not constitutionally enjoy. For example, Wales imposing statutory Welsh-language duties across public life."
Until recently, any State could also do that with language. I will say what we have for sever
Re: (Score:2)
That is simply completely false.
Blame the editor of the wiki articel, though.
For example a UK "state" can separate from the UK, by decision of its parliament. And/or vote by its citizens.
A random member of the UK certainly has far more power than a random US state.
Re: (Score:2)
Well the US are sending one soccer team (football) to the the championships, and the UK is sending 4.
And the sent them to the world championships and European championships.
So, go figure. However they only have one royal navy and one royal air force in the UK ...
Re: Reuters used to be able to write an article... (Score:4, Informative)
Speaking as a Brit.
1. We talk about British English all the time, when talking about English in the UK vs other places
2. No-one here, not even the most ardent Scottish, Welsh or Irish nationalist, thinks of their countries as having a single native language. For a start, Scotland has both Scottish Gaelic and Scots, as well as Scottish English. Fewer than 1% of Scots have the Gaelic, and Scots exists on a dialect continuum with English. Basically 100% of people born in all four home countries speak English with native fluency.
Re: (Score:2)
You greatly underestimate the amount of people who actually speak gallic. ... but that might just be me :D
I also assume you overestimate the English fluency greatly
Re: (Score:2)
You know that each country in Britain has their own language, and the one from England is called English.
You know each country in Britain has English as their primary and official language right? You know each country in Britain has English as the majority spoken language of its population right? Also why do you use Britain instead of the UK? Do you have something against the people of Northern Ireland? Is that your attempt at cultural genocide?
If you're going to be a pedantic dick remember that facts can be used against you.
Re: (Score:2)
There are a lot of words that are different in British English and American English; you should get used to it.
In addition our stupid coward, doesn't seem to know that Benzine is often used in these not American countries. Perhaps the retread could tell us all about that. And for other Slashdot geniuses, Benzine is not benzene.
Oh, while we are at it, Butanol can also be gasoline, or petrol, or Benzine. But not benzene.
note: Butanol is a large component of winter grade gasoline because of it's vapor pressure, it is difficult to ignite summer grade fuel in really cold temps.
Petroleum is crude oil. (Score:5, Informative)
Petroleum is crude oil.
As far as words go gasoline came first in the 1860s then petrol in the 1890s.
People in all countries make up words. Where do you think words come from?
Re: (Score:2)
Petroleum is crude oil. As far as words go gasoline came first in the 1860s then petrol in the 1890s. People in all countries make up words. Where do you think words come from?
The part that is amusing to me is we have all these pedants with rageboners about petrol vs gasoline vs benzine, yet the fuel we dump into our vehicles is not remotely a standard thing. Winter vs summer fuel mix, octane mix, ethanol percentages, what is added to the fuel to increase octane, detergents, demanding one name for that grouping is silly.
Re:Reuters used to be able to write an article... (Score:5, Interesting)
Gasoline is the older word, and FYI, it originated in London. It was a product of John Cassell called "Cazeline". A Dublin shopkeeper named Samuel Boyd got into a trademark dispute with Cassel, so changed the spelling to "Gazeline" as a dodge. The word "Gasoline" appears as a listed product taxed in the US in the 1860s. By contrast, the word "Petrol" didn't come into play until the 1890s, as a product created by Carless, Capel & Leonard. They tried to trademark it, but the trademark failed and it became a generic. So yes, "gasoline" is a decades-older word than "petrol".
Also, for the record, if you want historical lingustic accuracy: All Rs are rhotic, never pronounced like "uh"; the a in words like "bath", "path", etc doesn't sound like the o in "cot"; the suffix "-tary" (secretary, military, etc) is two syllables, not "trie"; and while Received Pronunciation has better preservation of central "t"s (in American English they're more like a d), increasingly Brits drop them outright (E.g. water: American "wadder", UK commonly "wa'uh").
Fall IS the historic name. Autumn is loanword originating in French that started taking over in common parliance in the late 1700s in Britain (before it was mainly used in poetic speech - for example, Shakespeare preferred it to fall).. And while we're at it: it's trash, not rubbish; the past participle of got is gotten; mad means angry (read the King James Bible [biblegateway.com]); it's guess, not suppose; it's candy, not sweets; it's diaper, not nappy; etc.
While there certainly are plenty of elements in which British English remains more conservative than American English**, it's well more common for American English to be more conservative. In general, it's usually London to blame; often deviations arose in London and then (due to its cultural domination) spread to the rest of the UK.
That said, when it comes to spelling, British English is usually more historically conservative than American English. Webster sought to make words be spelled more like they sound - for example, colour to color, theatre to theater, etc. Though ironically the US in some cases ended up restoring past spellings - the change of the "-ize" ending of American English actually predates the American-British split; it had been lost under French influence to "-ise", only to be restored in the US.
** - Interestingly, it was the American retention of rhoticity that led to some of the vowel shifts that British English kept as more original than the US. The classic case is Mary, Marry, and Merry - in American English, the vowels are pronounced the same, whereas in British English, Mary's is the same as in American English (like in "fair", "stair", etc), Marry is more like the a in "cat", and Merry is more like the e in "pet" or "step". But British English lost the rhoticity of the R instead of unifying the vowels to be easier with a rhotic R.
Re: (Score:2)
Only America makes up words...
Have you ever heard of Germany?
Re: (Score:2)
Only America makes up words...
Have you ever heard of Germany?
American makes up words. Germany chains up words. It's the difference between creation and concatenation. :-D
Re: (Score:2)
Fair enough. I was mostly just trying to be funny. Germany does more than just concatenation to make new words, of course, but it's really just stuff that happens in most languages. I have several favorites, best illustrated by some examples:
Don't verb nouns, because verbing weirds the language.
-- I believe I am paraphrasing this from Calvin and Hobbes
Don't anthropomorphize words. They hate that.
-- Not sure of the actual origin of this one.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't mind them calling it gasoline.
As long as they don't shorten it to gas
Since it is a liquid (at room temperatures)
And the short form of mathematics is maths.
It's plural.
Re: (Score:2)
I could care less if you abuse language like that.
or couldn't I...
Re: (Score:2)
And the short form of mathematic is math.
I do not get your point.
Re: (Score:1)
The basic claim is correct. This article is more in depth and it has a graph with the trends.
The customers in the EU have made it clear what their preferences are, all things being equal, and things are rarely equal. ICE (and various HEV variants) will be the right choice for some for a long long time.
Re: (Score:1)
I don't think the Europeans want ICE, even if their agents mainly shoot American citizens.
Re:Reuters used to be able to write an article... (Score:4, Insightful)
https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/... [dwcdn.net]
Re: (Score:2)
Nope.
And tell me how your oversized pickup, with the "rolling coal" add-on, is better than my PHYB minivan. Where nothing inside gets rained on, or stolen by passerbys, or...
Good to see this (Score:2)
Giving the major automakers a challenge is good. The 70 year up escalator of car prices via unneeded features and unnecessary extra computer chips needs competition.
Re: (Score:3)
We are definitely seeing some responses from the OEMs too. Sometimes both wacky and intriguing, like this:
https://www.dacia.co.uk/concep... [dacia.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
Hybrids without plug-in are kind of annoying. They tend to have very small batteries and charge them from dino juice. People are sold on them as convenient, but they aren't great for my lungs. Better than a pure fossil, but still not great.
At least with a PHEV some more of those miles will be electric, but we are still a long way from decent air quality around here.
Re: (Score:3)
Even worse, there's the token hybrids, that often get referred to as "Mild Hybrids". These have a teeny tiny motor (I've seen 3bhp quoted on one, but I think closer to 10bhp is more normal) along with a small 48V battery to go with it, and it tries to help smooth out torque gaps, but doesn't really do owt for economy.
Non plug in hybrids, like the original Prius, did something to kick start the movement, but they do feel rather outdated now.
Re: (Score:3)
They only really make sense for people who can't get past their range anxiety, or who live in places with really bad charging infrastructure. You have to cart around an ICE, maintain it, fill it with petrol, fix it when one of the many complex parts goes wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
[plug in hybrids] only really make sense for people who can't get past their range anxiety, or who live in places with really bad charging infrastructure. You have to cart around an ICE, maintain it, fill it with petrol, fix it when one of the many complex parts goes wrong.
Yes, but for that, what you get is the ability to have a useful electric vehicle with a much much smaller battery than a fully-electric vehicle. It's been shown time and time again that most trips taken in cars are short, so you really don't need the big batteries that the electric car manufacturers all headline, but the small IC engine allows you to have that range anxiety.
In principle, this would be the perfect solution for many users. In practice, however, a lot of plug-in hybrid owners don't bother to
Re: (Score:2)
Given how cheap big battery EVs are now, it doesn't seem worth getting a hybrid in all but a few edge cases. Maybe if you can't charge at home or work, and do a lot of miles.
Re: (Score:2)
They only really make sense for people who can't get past their range anxiety, or who live in places with really bad charging infrastructure. You have to cart around an ICE, maintain it, fill it with petrol, fix it when one of the many complex parts goes wrong.
My dream car is a BEV towing a 20kW diesel genset plugged into the charging port.
Re: (Score:2)
That's what a PHEV with a range extender motor would be for. Mild hybrids were more to make fleet mileage requirements, and even regular HEVs was more for when charging infrastructure didn't exist and batteries were expensive.
I would absolutely trade my HEV in for an EV today.
Still, if we can get people to go towards an EV in a two step process, it'd still be fine. IE ICE->HEV/PHEV->EV
If some end up going ICE->HEV->PHEV->EV it's still good. Heck, if 10% stop at PHEV. My brother is an elec
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The headline mentions "Fully Electric" but TFS includes the following:
December registrations of battery electric, plug-in hybrid and hybrid electric cars were up 51%, 36.7% and 5.8%, respectively, to account collectively for 67% of the bloc's registrations, up from 57.8% in December 2024.
Only one category is "fully electric" - plug-in hybrids and hybrids are not "fully electric" - and the article linked-to makes no mention of how many/what percentages of total vehicle sales were "fully electric", lumping all forms of hybrids under the heading "fully electric"...
Re: (Score:2)
No, hybrids are a separate candidate under that standard.
What's happening is that the sales of pure ICE vehicles are cratering over in Europe. All forms of electric are becoming more popular, EV, PHEV, and HEV. ICE dropped enough to pass EVs, at around 22% each.
Pure hybrids (HEV) are at around 34%, PHEV around 10%.
It looks like HEV sales are starting to decline a bit, PHEV are increasing slowly, but EVs are growing rapidly.
Like Voyager (Score:2)
I'm reminded of all the solar system boundaries the Voyager probes have crossed over the years. It seems there's actually dozens of ways to define the border of the solar system, the difference between "inside" and interstellar space. But regardless, they're being crossed one by one.
Sure, Pure gasoline vs pure EV is a fairly minor point NOW, but I'm thinking that it wasn't all that long ago that cars were 100% fossil fuel, with that ~7% diesel.
Next step will be for it to catch up with fossil fuel vehicles
Tesla was a leader (Score:5, Insightful)
But I fully expect them to end up as a niche brand. I do honestly respect a lot of the groundbreaking work that was done by Tesla, effectively proving that EVs could be mainstream. It took a lot of public money to do it, but maybe it was worth it. Now that job is done its up to someone else to make vehicles for everyone and that was never going to Tesla. I'm sure they'll always have something to offer but they're not the leaders on FSD and they don't really make the kind of simple EV that most people are looking for at a price that everyone can afford.
I'm still interested to see if Toyota can make a dent in this market. They've been holding back because of the battery limitations but that's allowed Chinese brands to eat up the market. Eventually the market appeal of the Toyota brand is going to wear off, they can't expect us to wait forever.
Re:Tesla was a leader (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm still interested to see if Toyota can make a dent in this market. They've been holding back because of the battery limitations but that's allowed Chinese brands to eat up the market. Eventually the market appeal of the Toyota brand is going to wear off, they can't expect us to wait forever.
My impression is that EV technology is maturing and stabilizing somewhat. e.g. near 400V-800V battery packs, Heat-pump based cooling and heating of cabin and battery. battery preconditioning for fast-charge... 15%-80% in 20-30min for roadtrips...
The formula and main approaches have been identified. Whatever battery improvements happen will just get incorporated as they come.
So now it's just like another drivetrain option and most people care more about like roominess, comfort, materials, fit and finish, price, dealer experience, service, parts availability, and the rest of normal car stuff. So i think Toyota will keep its relative rank vs existing players in the medium term.
Barring geo-political issues (*), the Chinese brands will probably be in the mix the same way Koreans are...
i mean they still have a cheaper labor advantage and government support so they MAY end up dominating over everyone. But like idk there's much special sauce in the drivetrains anymore. (one advantage of the Chinese new cos is that, like Tesla, Rivian etc they don't have to perfect ICE performance and reliability which is much more finicky and niche than motors/batteries/inverters)
*) i admit i'd be a little concerned to have a Chinese car on the off chance of remote monitoring and kill switches... and depending on a Chinese company for support and spares. Though like... i like Lenovo laptops so...
Re: (Score:3)
I think some of those items you mentioned, eg, heat pumps for EVs, have been part of the core offer right from the outset. My first gen Zoe back in 2015 had a 400V battery, heat pump, pre-heat, and did 20 to 80 in 40mins. It was, admittedly, a puny battery, but still, it was all of what you described.
I still think there’s a lot of room for innovation and quality. In Europe, in particular, I am convinced that there will be a lot of demand for a supermini with a 300+ mile range. We have a lot of supermi
Re: (Score:2)
That is absolutely not the case. Firstly the Zoe is not from the onset. Renault came quite late to the market. Secondly there are EVs on the market today, current models, without heatpumps. The Mustang E-tech, and Hyundai Kona to name a couple.
Also the battery of the Zoe isn't what he described. 40min 20-80 is borderline non-existent in anything other than massively oversized vehicles, e.g. F-150. For small budget vehicles in the Zoe range 30min is standard today. For any non-budget model general purpose ve
Re: (Score:3)
I think you’re being a bit pedantic on some points:
- Of course there were mass market EVs around before the Zoe, but from today’s perspective, 2013 is reasonably close to the start of the EV mass market. It’s 13 long years ago, which is a lot further away than the Zoe’s launch was from the Leaf’s launch
- While there are plenty of EVs that haven’t offered heat pumps, my point wasn’t that every EV offered them, just that there have pretty much always been models that
Re: (Score:3)
My impression is that EV technology is maturing and stabilizing somewhat. e.g. near 400V-800V battery packs, Heat-pump based cooling and heating of cabin and battery. battery preconditioning for fast-charge... 15%-80% in 20-30min for roadtrips...
The formula and main approaches have been identified. Whatever battery improvements happen will just get incorporated as they come.
No, it is not. It's just the current crop of cars, e.g. the 2025 model year. Now you get similar technology that had costed 50,000 EUR or more a few years ago, in 25,000 EUR cars. But if you look into the 50,000 EUR range, it's different. Take the Xpeng g7+ for example, which offers 20-80% charging in 10 mins at a price point of 53,000 EUR! Or the Mercedes CLA 250+ with a 500 mile range costing 58,000 EUR!
Charging technology is currently switching from 400 V DC to 800 V DC - but that's not just the cars,
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Toyota held back because they put all their chips into hydrogen and failed miserably. Set themselves back a decade.
Re: (Score:3)
I think you have to consider the counter-factual: a world without Tesla. I reckon in the end it had only a mildly accelerative effect, if any, because the Chinese were already committed to the transition at the time Tesla started, and they built the stack, top to bottom. They would have been providing the same push to European OEMs that they are providing right now. There was a time when it could have been very different, but that would have required Tesla to go with the Model 2, not waste time on the boond
Re:Tesla was a leader (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm still interested to see if Toyota can make a dent in this market. They've been holding back because their management ignorantly thought of the battery limitations
FTFY. Toyota claimed there were battery limitations even a full decade after EVs were commonly seen on the roads. Their claim of battery limitations is an excuse they used to do nothing, all the while pushing hydrogen which was a disaster. They are so hyper focused on gaslighting countries and claiming that the Hilux and Camry are the only viable car they are very much missing the train when it comes to how the market is moving.
Congrats to them, while they innovated the first hybrid they are now an infamous laggard in the industry. A colleague of my has a b4zx bzx4 bz4x or whatever the heck it's called and having been in it I can categorically say it's the second worst EV I've ever driven behind the Mustang E-tech. Leaving aside the traditional parts of car quality, their power train feels like it's borderline non-functional. Range estimates vary wildly, never line up with battery remaining at destination, the dash display looks something between childish and complicated in presentation putting power vs regen front and centre, and somehow despite having more power than a bottom tier Polestar 2 (2021) while also being lighter it feels incredibly sluggish. Also it torque steers out the whazoo. It drives like a car from 2005 with an electric motor strapped in it somewhere as an afterthought.
They have a long way to go before they will be respected in the electric world. God I miss my old Hilux though, that thing was a beast.
Re: (Score:2)
You didn't like the Mustang Mach-E? Can you let me know why?
I'm interested in electric autos and want to know if there's a relatively inexpensive way (used?) to get one without getting something I'll regret. Any advice you have would be appreciated.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually most of my complaints about the Mustang E-tech have more to do with the car than the fact that it is electric. It just feels like driving a rubbish car. Handles poorly doesn't feel good on the road, doesn't feel very sporty, hated the interior, very poor comfort on the seats, and while for me it was a rental (I travel a lot so get a lot of different cars) I feel like I get a lot more for $50k (Europe). If you want to go fast off the line it was a good enough car but even then I think there's a lot
Re: (Score:2)
I think Toyota were in a good position to make these judgements, given that for a long time they were the leaders in developing HEVs and still sell more hybrids than anyone else. They knew the battery technology, where it was going and what it could or could not achieve. Hydrogen was an opportunity and I'm not sure I think they made a huge mistake in trying it. It didn't work out but they exhausted that as best as they could and so at least we know for sure. So while they should own their failures, I think
Re: (Score:3)
It took a lot of public money to do it...
This often gets said, but it's not true. They got a $465M DOE loan. But that was a loan, which they paid back. Federal tax incentives went to anyone buying any EV from any company.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a distinction without a difference. No one took up the mantle for EVs, the reality is Tesla got to where it was because of incentives and the loan. The fact that it was available to others who didn't do anything with it is not only irrelevant, but it reinforces the point the GP was making: It took Tesla and government money to prove the EV case.
Re: Tesla was a leader (Score:2)
Is a repaid gov't loan really "government money"?
Did Uncle Sam write Tesla $465M in checks, or did it simply say "If Tesla fails to pay back this $465M in loans, the Gov't will cover the loss"?
When Solyndra collapsed, the Gov't loan guarantees were converted into debts the Gov't paid off, then tried to reclaim by selling-off singing robots and pricy Silicon Valley factory space.
Solyndra cost the Gov't money, Tesla didn't, because the Gov't backed Tesla loans never went into default, the Gov't never wrote a
Re: Huh. (Score:2)
The Aussie side of course right?
Re: Huh. (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Don’t you call others snowflakes?
Article is genuinely accurate, which is good (Score:5, Insightful)
Too often, these articles have conflated fully electric with all-electric. But not this time: 308,955 full BEVs were sold across Europe* in December 2025 vs 250,449 petrol cars. And it’s the rate of change that’s quite startling: EVs up by more than 100k yoy, and petrol down 55k. If (*if*) we saw the same change next years, we’d be at 400k+ BEV sales and under 200k petrol. That would put BEVs about even with hybrids (381k this year, up less than 20k from last year) and far more than PHEVs (123k this year, up a touch over 30k from last year), assuming their growth rates remain more or less the same. By 2028, on the same trajectories, we’d be above 500k BEVs, under 150k petrol, and it would be blindingly obvious that BEVs were the dominant drivetrain.
For those of us who prefer quieter streets and cleaner air, this is a big, big win — especially when coupled with the other modal shift happening — the rise of microtransportation (cycling, e-bikes including e-cargo and e-trikes/quadricycles, e-scooters).
Of course, there’s a very very long journey ahead. The UK has 34m cars on the road, of which about 2m are now EVs. We buy 2m new cars a year, so even if we were at 100% new EV sales, it would take roughly 16 years for the whole fleet to turn over. And obviously, we’re a way off that. But in 20 years, this transition will be more or less done in Europe, and that’s pretty amazing to think about.
Translation (Score:1, Flamebait)
Only the rich early adopter types have money to buy a new car in Europe.
How much have car sales gone down overall?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Peak was 2019, 15.9m. 2025 was 13.3m. The US peaked in 2016 at 17.5m, 2025 was 16.2m. I think the data for both places for both are far too messy to support the PP’s contention that Europeans can somehow not afford to buy new cars (by implication compared with Americans).
European countries are smaller, can push (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
On one hand, European population densities are higher than ours. But on the other, we are supposed to be the richest nation on earth, and a lot of our lands are very sparsely populated, which is to say, most of them have almost nobody on them. Ignoring those regions completely hardly makes any dent in the population you're addressing. Therefore the whole idea that the size of the nation is an impediment to getting large numbers of conversions is a nonsense one. The difference is that they got on getting cha
Re: European countries are smaller, can push (Score:2)
Except people need to drive through those areas with EVs somehow if everyone has an EV. In Europe they can take a train and rent a vehicle at half the cost as it is here. And it doesn't matter how wealthy a nation is if they don't prioritize infrastructure for EVs then they will be limited in what they can be used for.
Re: (Score:2)
Except people need to drive through those areas with EVs somehow if everyone has an EV.
No, they do not. You're still committing precisely the same error. They only need to drive along lines running through those areas. Cars literally can not operate anywhere else. The area is irrelevant.
Re: (Score:2)
The area is absolutely relevant! Canada is full of all kinds of cellular dead zones because the vendors have decided that there aren't enough people in the AREA to suit a tower. The same will happen with chargers if it is left up to private industry.
Re: (Score:2)
The area is absolutely relevant! Canada is full of all kinds of cellular dead zones
We are talking about power connections for vehicles which drive on roads, not about radio reception. I don't know what conversation you think you're having, but you're sadly mistaken.
The same will happen with chargers if it is left up to private industry.
Nice if statement you got there. Shame if it should happen to evaluate as false.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is even more pronounced in vacation areas. I know a town with 10k people driving 2 hours out from the city every day to see it in the summer, but population 50 in the winter. How many people will need a charge to get back into the city and who will bear the cost of the infrastructure?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
We also have leaders who can see the 'direction of travel' and whilst they all vary on how much encouragement they want to give EVs, they are, at very worst, neutral about them, and at best are super keen to give tax breaks or other incentives.
The USA currently has a leadership who really don't think you should be driving an EV. Aside from preventing or dramatically impeding the world leaders in EVs selling in the USA, they're encouraging oil prices to drop as much as possible so your paid up truck can carr
Re: (Score:2)
Europe has punished ICE owners for a very long time by having a higher tax on large engines. So the population did not grow such a dependency on having them. Here that would be seen as a violation of freedom. I am in the middle. I cannot get an EV because I expect to have to move all of my belongings and pets 3000 km by driving in a little over a year. That's going to be hard enough with an ICE, never mind having to charge along the way. That's a move all within my own country, but to put it in perspe
Re: (Score:2)
Your driving distances are not longer because you make a comparison to states to make one point while ignoring another. EU countries are like American states in that there's no restriction to move between them. Yeah some of the countries are small, and that is completely irrelevant in a place where people can legitimately live in one country and commute to another to work.
The typical commute distance has nothing to do with a country (or state) and everything to do with a city. US cities have urban sprawl an
if (Score:2)
That's all well and good, as long as EU can produce enough electricity. Fortunately, Europeans don't drive the kind of distances that Americans do, so they have a better shot at not running out of capacity.
data (Score:2)
According to our local AI oracle:
EU Average: The average European drives roughly 6,500 miles (10,500 km) per year.
Comparison to US: The average American drives significantly more, averaging over 13,500 miles (21,700 km) per year.
Re: (Score:2)
That is including people who don't go anywhere, who take public transportation, or who walk or bike. What you want is how far somebody who uses a car actually travels per day. It took some messing with Google AI but I got it to cough up this (I had to do two queries, it refused to show the same info for both at the same time):
United States: 31.1 miles per day
France: ~34 km (21 miles) per day
UK: approximately 19 miles (31 km) per day.
Germany: ~19.0 km (11.8 miles) per person per day.
Croatia: ~7.6 km (4.7 mil