Is it though? It seems everywhere I look there's new EVs popping up, YouTube videos, reviews, blogposts and websites such as this. Not to mention governments bending over backwards to offer tax breaks, improve infrastructure, parking only for electric vehicles, etc.
In fact, if anything, I would say it's overreported.
EVs are the new crypto bros now. They might be onto something have ICE cars sales slump and Toyotas bankrupting with tons of unsold inventories. But the reverse is true where Tesla inventories spike up this quarters and Toyotas sales spike up as well. I am not surprise if Cathie's Ark is heavily behind all this overreporting, she double or triple down on Tesla recently. Yeah RoboTaxi and FSD craze now. Strange we didnt see much with Waymo which is at least 10 uears ahead of Tesla and FSD is not even at level 3.0. If you can speak chinese or read chinese reports, some development in China will literally make you sell Tesla fast.
Here in the UK soon they're going to start charging 10 pounds a day for residential vehicles that aren't zero pollution, commercial vehicles a day 60 pounds a day. Eventually leading to ban on fossil fuel vehicles. These fines can change cross regions.
Regardless of what you think of the environment, this may be less consumer driven then governmental driven by policy. Something to think about anyway.
Here in the NL they'll soon lift the road tax exemption for e-vehicles, and since it's weight based, EV-owners are going to pay, and fuel vehicles will become more interesting again.
I'm am pretty certain that EVs won't end up being much cheaper than ICE cars. Finland cars in general have high tax burden. And you have to fund the roads from somewhere. If you can't separate electricity at home it means adding taxes on EVs in some other way...
I don't live in the UK but I do wonder: is the infrastructure there truly ready? And does the average car owner think the whole charging time debacle is there as far as every day workability goes?
Charging 10 pounds a day per vehicle will certainly go a long way towards upgrading infrastructure, if that's the idea behind it. Hopefully it'll be spent appropriately.
Euro 6 diesel cars, or those produced in 2015 and prior, and Euro 4 petrol cars, or those produced 2006 or prior, have to pay £12.50 each day they enter.
> Here in the UK soon they're going to start charging 10 pounds a day for residential vehicles that aren't zero pollution, commercial vehicles a day 60 pounds a day.
> You said: > > > Here in the UK soon they're going to start charging 10 pounds a day for residential vehicles that aren't zero pollution, commercial vehicles a day 60 pounds a day.
> > which is plainly not true.
My statement holds true as this does take place in the UK. I did clarify in a follow-up post that this takes place in certain zones in the UK. You conveniently left off about the different zones your quote from the original post. The number of these zones in the UK is increasing. People are indeed being charged per day for car is much newer than 17 years old. Legislation has passed to ban sale gasoline vehicles in the UK in 2035.
Legislation is driving EV sales which may not be representative the consumer. I don't disagree with improving our environment however it's hard to tease the effect this is having on the consumer choice with this type of legislation.
"London introduced the ULEZ, which charges older, more polluting cars a fee to enter the city, in 2019.
Euro 6 diesel cars, or those produced in 2015 and prior, and Euro 4 petrol cars, or those produced 2006 or prior, have to pay £12.50 each day they enter.
T&E says that by replicating low emissions zones in cities throughout the country, the UK could enhance its energy security."
I mean, I'm firmly in the pro-EV camp, but how the fuck are lower-class people not rioting in the streets daily? 3.6k a year just because you're too poor to afford a new 40k+ vehicle, and that on top of inflation and Brexit aftereffects? That's frankly insane.
They're not rioting because that's probably just a rumor and rumors are a dime a dozen billion (they used to be a "dime a dozen" back when we didn't have the internet, spam bots and GenAI).
Awesome, you managed to reply to my comment and yet not post a single link to the 5-6 comments calling you out for not providing a source.
Edit:
I've found your link. It taxes gasoline cars older than 2006 (so 18+ years old) and diesel cars older than 2018 (so 6 years old). Which is super fair since those emit a ton of particulates, why should drivers be able to poison local residents for free?
There's no mention of an outright ban for ICE cars.
Well it currently doesn't cover all of EU. However that is a great question. I think there is going to be conflict between Urban versus rural communities with socioeconomics as these types of zones continue to expand.
The cars may be awesome, but like most green tech, they're 'toys for the wealthy' at the moment, and not yet a solution for the masses.
Even if the price of the cars comes down (and the used market grows and proves whether degraded batteries are a major issue or not), not enough people are talking about the prerequisite of owning your own home with its own parking space for the ability to charge at home.
If you have to park on the street, or live in an apartment, or rent your home, you may have no way to install a charger at home. And nobody wants to be at the mercy of public chargers alone (unreliable, queues, local monopolies hiking prices up).
70% of americans live in single family homes, most of these have somewhere you can charge at. Americans who dont live in a sfh probably arent buying an EV anyway either because they dont want a car at all or because they want a cheaper one.
Installing a charger only costs a couple hundred dollars, not insurmountable for renters but certainly an obstacle.
Even assuming that you can inconvenience large, double digit percentages of the population to use bikes as transportation, other large, double digit percentages of the population will fight bike infrastructure tooth and nail because for them it's worth (statistically) killing some people rather than slightly inconveniencing them.
Let alone fighting the car and oil and gas lobby.
I say this as a bike fan. I think bikes will ultimately win out a large share of transportation in most countries, in urban areas, but will be a long tough fight and I think we'll be where I hope everyone would be (the Netherlands) right about when I die, in 30-40-50 years...
There's many conditions that must be met to make cycling a good option.
Thie distance must be fairly short. You must be relatively young/fit/healthy/able-bodied. The weather must OK (not frequently too cold/hot/wet). The terrain must be fairly flat. The traffic conditions must be not-suicidal. There must secure bike storage at both ends. Ideally, shower/changing facilities at both ends for bad-weather days.
Not really a factor in dense urban environments. Everything within 5km is easily reachable within ~15 mins. Especially so once you factor in ebikes.
> You must be relatively young/fit/healthy/able-bodied.
Relatively is doing a lot of work there. This is not true for the most part and again, ebikes.
> The weather must OK (not frequently too cold/hot/wet).
The weather is mostly ok in most places most of the time. Frequency barely matters, you can always leave your bike home and walk/use public transportation instead if the weather that day isn't suitable.
> The terrain must be fairly flat.
Gears exist. Ebikes nullify this regardless.
> The traffic conditions must be not-suicidal.
This is the only real problem - dedicated biking infrastructure, physically separated from cars is required. However, it's usually an excuse more than a real issue. Biking infrastructure is astoundingly cheap compared to anything else.
> There must secure bike storage at both ends.
Depends on the trip type. It's usually not a problem due to extremely low cost - 5 U-shaped pipes attached to the ground gives you 10 bike parking spaces in a tiny area. If popping into a shop for 5 mins it's usually enough to just lock the bike to itself. It's unlikely a thief would carry off a bike in that time. Otherwise, keep the bike is naturally secure at home/workplace.
Plus, if it does get stolen, bikes are cheap and a dime a dozen.
> Ideally, shower/changing facilities at both ends for bad-weather days.
Unnecessary for most people in most conditions, but if it is an issue, usually cycling slower or getting an ebike works fine.
For me (BEV formal owner, formal, since the real owner is the OEM) there are few arguments against BEV that will keep their adoption slow:
- first of all they are connected crapware on wheel, the formal human owner do not really own nothing. Oh, I have NOTHING against having GSM connectivity inside a car, but I want to control it, so instead of a crapplication bound to a crappy unreliable services hosted by the OEM I want an open API/website served by my car, directly accessible with dynamic DNS/my DNS, I do choose how to roll out updated, I read what updates do and so on. No connected commercial software should be allowed to roll. This last sentence is not a thing most people count, but they feel the crapware crappyness and they dislike and they do not trust it;
- for the material operation life (no matter if you re-sell the car quickly or not) they cost too much, oh, maybe not in China, but surely here in EU. Being built with far less parts, far less fine precision needed per part, far easier industrial assembly it's hard to justify BEV prices because of lithium or crapware costs...
- no real "new deal" integration, I do have p.v. at home, why the hell I can't buy an inverter with a simple DC out for 400V LFP car battery since I can buy 400V LFP stationary battery, DC charged from the p.v. inverter? Why wasting so much energy in a double conversion PVsideDC→CarInverterACtoDC? Why I can't use car battery to DC supply my inverter to power my home if I want so? Why only VERY recently CCS have set the first bi-direction DC standard and still no BEV implement it? Why not offer a 230Vac socket in the car, since the car have a V2L function only bound to the car charging port, witch do not allow operation when the car move (like simply powering a fridge in the car)? Most people would not use such options since most still have no PV, have no need to use 230Vac stuff in the car etc but selling them and advertising them would push people to see BEV as different beast than nice-to-drive but expensive limited range cars.
Personally I'm happy enough of my choice because WFH with PV in a mountain area the fuel economy is sound enough to buy a BEV, but well... That's not much a common scenario EVEN IF it should be, since ~30% of jobs can be done from home, and those who can have no reasons to be in a flat/apartment instead of a home. Especially to push energy efficiency in new constructions.
The past decade's EV success has been driven by government regulations and subsidies (which is a good thing actually, I'm 100% in favor in governments intervening in the economy to foster socially positive outcome), the future looks a bit less bright though, because on many places subsidies are drying up (which makes sense though, because subsidizing electric cars is probably one of the least efficient use of money to fight climate change).
The time will tell, but I have a feeling that, while the subsidies were useful to turn people's attention to the EVs, they will not prove to be deciding factor for a decision to buy an EV or not.
The manufacturers will adjust the prices a bit, and the electricity prices are stabilized.
For me the main factor was the feeling that I'm polluting the steet where my kids play way less every time I drive out.
Let alone stuff like buses. I think we've all had that moment when we got stuck behind a badly maintained diesel bus/truck that was spewing toxic black fumes behind it. I can't even image what folks with asthma do in those cases.
I think it is a matter of price: when EVs get cheap enough, then they will sell no matter lack of subsidies.
Same happened with windmills. For the first ~20 years they needed subsidies to get built, but today they are so cheap (per kWh) that capitalists invest in them without needing any subsidies.
With China going full speed into EV production, the prices will drop.
With charging stations springing up everywhere, range axiety is going away and this will enable EVs with smaller batteries, which will reduce price.
I've recently considered buying an EV. I've come to the conclusion that it only makes sense if you can charge at home and won't frequently go on longer road trips. Even then, I might still consider it too expensive/risky at this point.
It comes down to a few reasons for me:
* If you can't charge at home, EVs generally don't seem to make economical sense
* The charging network is not well enough developed, especially when considering peak times like public holidays etc.
* If you don't have access to the Tesla supercharger network, you will very likely overpay on charging. So much so that it makes an ICE car look cheap to refuel.
* Getting a used EV is still a very weird experience with one of the most important indicators very hard to determine: battery health
I wonder if evaluations similar to mine have led to many people in the US owning EVs only as their second car and still retain an ICE car "on the side" (or vice versa).
If these issues are not resolved, I expect the EV market share to top at about 30% for the foreseeable future. Hybrids and CNG vehicles seem to be a more economical and practical alternative for the masses while also significantly reducing emissions when compared to traditional ICE cars.
I haven't charged at home for nearly 2 years. It was not an issue.
Nonetheless, you can charge your EV on a normal powerplug. Should be very easy for home owners to charge at home.
No clue about the charging network in US, in EU its good enough.
Tesla is cheaper and more expensive in germany, it highly depends on what you use.
EVs show that batterie life is no real issue. Not a bigger concern than your engine block breaking.
Hybrids have horrible co2 values and CNG are very limited available while a plug is available nearly everywere. I have charged at hotels often enough now.
EV is a lot more fun to drive and its easy to save a lot if you have solar panels. I don't think it will top at 30% (what a random number).
> I haven't charged at home for nearly 2 years. It was not an issue.
How frequently do you drive and how long are your trips? Where and on what network do you charge? What do you pay for charging?
> Nonetheless, you can charge your EV on a normal powerplug. Should be very easy for home owners to charge at home.
What if you aren't a home owner? What if you are a home owner and the car parking is too far away from your house?
> No clue about the charging network in US, in EU its good enough.
Where in the EU are you talking about? These all look like blanket statements to me as they don't consider the real context of a person trying to decide if an EV is practical for them.
> Tesla is cheaper and more expensive in germany
What does that mean?
> EVs show that batterie life is no real issue. Not a bigger concern than your engine block breaking.
An engine block breaking is a real issue. That's why mileage is reported and it's quite common to do inspections before buying a used car. Battery health is not reported and there is no straightforward way to do an inspection.
> EV is a lot more fun to drive and its easy to save a lot if you have solar panels.
What if you don't have solar panels and are on a budget? Does it help that it's fun to drive if you can't afford it or it makes your life impractical?
> 30% (what a random number)
I said "at about 30%". It's a gut guess, so not completely random.
I think in general this conversation is a good example of how some people assume that their privileged life situation is just normal and everybody owns a home with solar panels and a garage with a charger. But that's not true. Maybe 30% of people can afford that, hence my gut guess on the "random" number.
>> I haven't charged at home for nearly 2 years. It was not an issue.
>How frequently do you drive and how long are your trips? Where and on what network do you charge? What do you pay for charging?
Between 40 and 60 cent per kWh. Around 1200km/month.
>> Nonetheless, you can charge your EV on a normal powerplug. Should be very easy for home owners to charge at home.
> What if you aren't a home owner? What if you are a home owner and the car parking is too far away from your house?
I'm a flat owner and got my charging setup 3 month ago in the underground parking lot. We had to discuss it in the owner meeting and germany made a law which enforces them to take it seriuos. If legal reasons are not solving your issue or you can't charge, you are probably not a good candidate for EV right now.
>> No clue about the charging network in US, in EU its good enough.
> Where in the EU are you talking about? These all look like blanket statements to me as they don't consider the real context of a person trying to decide if an EV is practical for them.
Same with your statement tbh. My EV can hold 500km / 310 miles. I have a charging spot 15 minutes away by foot. It really really didn't matter to me to think about charging a little bit more.
>> Tesla is cheaper and more expensive in germany
> What does that mean?
Tesla has daily rates, special offers and a membership. Others like EnBW has this too. There are a lot of apps and rates you can get from different companies. Tesla charging network is just one.
>> EVs show that batterie life is no real issue. Not a bigger concern than your engine block breaking.
> An engine block breaking is a real issue. That's why mileage is reported and it's quite common to do inspections before buying a used car. Battery health is not reported and there is no straightforward way to do an inspection.
But we do know from existing EVs (we have them already for a long time now) that the battery health is not a big issue.
>> EV is a lot more fun to drive and its easy to save a lot if you have solar panels.
> What if you don't have solar panels and are on a budget? Does it help that it's fun to drive if you can't afford it or it makes your life impractical?
No and people who can't afford it are not the people who should start buying EVs right now. I think thats a communication missconception. Plenty of people who can afford EVs are not buying them, if you are not the right person, your only action you should do is to say 'i want an affordable EV and laws making it possible'.
Nonetheless i'm a little bit idealistic and think we need to change.
>> 30% (what a random number)
> I said "at about 30%". It's a gut guess, so not completely random.
If you are not an automotive expert, your gut guess is random. Right now we are at 2%! If breakthroughs are happening (solid state, cheaper, ...) it can easily jump faster than you think. If you don't have anything to say why it should platoon at 30% its random.
> I think in general this conversation is a good example of how some people assume that their privileged life situation is just normal and everybody owns a home with solar panels and a garage with a charger. But that's not true. Maybe 30% of people can afford that, hence my gut guess on the "random" number.
I believe that people who are absolutly NOT in the position at all to think about EVs are feeling addressed.
Have to make generalized statements without experience. That's the important difference and why your claim that my statements are the same is wrong. I don't have experience with an EV in my current life situation. And I won't get that without buying an EV. So the only way I can judge if I should buy one is by making generalized statements and trying to get specific answers from people who have that experience. This is why the EV owners should be more careful about generalized claims than the ones who consider buying an EV.
> Nonetheless i'm a little bit idealistic and think we need to change.
Yes. I think we can boil this discussion down to that point. This is not about what solution is actually implementable for everyone. It's a very idealistic discussion.
In a lot of countries, there is legislation which is more or less enforcing EVs in the near future (2030/2035) on everyone without making it possible for them to reasonably own such a car. If this is a bet on a technology breakthrough in the next 5 years, then good luck with that. Otherwise, this seems to be just an attempt to exclude many (if not most) people from car ownership going forward, thereby further enhancing inequality while making those excluded feel bad about themselves.
The same reason why a lot of other things are necessary by government like getting rid of lead in wall color. Or other human rights.
The governance allows companies to push in a direction.
The interesting thing is not that someone sets a target, the interesting thing will be what happens if we don't achieve it. And its obvious that we can't enforce it if its not possible.
After all the poor people need to get to work and they are needed. I don't think anyone wants to exclude them from car ownership.
> The governance allows companies to push in a direction.
Arguably, that's not true. Tesla who apparently pioneered the recent success in EVs started off with that development without any subsidies. If the technology is good enough to justify a switch for people, it will work in the open market without any political push or subsidy. Subsidies generally lead to warped markets and wealth transfers which is neither evaluated nor accounted for usually, hence adding to the aforementioned increase in inequality.
> The interesting thing is not that someone sets a target, the interesting thing will be what happens if we don't achieve it. And its obvious that we can't enforce it if its not possible.
Why do you think that it's necessary to control people that way? I believe everybody would want the cleanest and best car possible regardless. People would even be happy paying a bit more if it were beneficial for the environment. That's not the issue. The issue is that it still has to work for them.
> After all the poor people need to get to work and they are needed. I don't think anyone wants to exclude them from car ownership.
Then why embrace policies that are based on hard limits, restrictions and punishments?
I'm really not sure if you trolling or believing in this.
People don't act rational and plenty of people literaly don't care about the environment or other aspects.
Tesla was pushed by Elon Musk Money and he did this because he saw the market and had the money to disrupt it. Classical car manufacturer wouldn't have build EVs ever because they don't care.
Having a margin of 30% of classical build cars is nothing you spit on.
And there are plenty of market regulations which are most of the time here to protect or help us consumers. Shell, BP and co spending millions for lobbying.
From an economyical standpoint we also have an issue: Plenty of people don't know or don't care to solve the initial investment problem. Figting classical cars, were the market was optimized for 50 years is not easy to disrupt.
Basically non disruptive for consumers alone.
The punishment, hard limits and restrictions are not here to punish consumers but producers.
BMW you are not allowed to sell ICE Cars in europe 2030 vs. dear consumer you are not allowed to buy ICE cars in europe 2030.
Nonetheless in regards of our specific transition: We are actually trying to transition faster than normal because of climate change. We have a huge issue in our society regarding the relevants of this topic.
Old generations mostly ignore it or dont care, the young are frightend and we in the middle (me) im in the middle of my normal life while trying to push more for doing more.
For someone who thinks that a sudden increase in ocean temperature is a very bad sign, we can't wait until everyone has slowly and steadily transitioned. Instead the adoption curve has to be pushed.
> I'm really not sure if you trolling or believing in this.
Ok, that is the end of the discussion then. I think you are not in a position to claim that I am trolling when using a throwaway account that was created literally 3 hours ago.
If you believe that transitioning the planet from ICE cars to EVs will solve climate change, then I cannot help but say that I think this is more than unrealistic and misguided thinking. If it will make a difference at all, then it's only a very small part - not enough to reach the implied goal for sure. The entire transportation sector in the US accounts for roughly 30% of the US greenhouse gas emissions. Cars for individual transport are only a fraction of this. Swapping those over to EVs will not erase all CO2 emissions, but rather reduce them. This is because both production causes CO2 and electricity is partly generated using carbon emitting processes. We are thus talking about a small reduction of a part of a part and that needs to be put in context with the costs for that transition. Meanwhile, emissions in other places on the same planet is going up. Drastically.
We urgently need to rethink our approach to "normality" if we really aim to change anything about CO2 emissions at scale in a short period of time. Individual choices are the most important factor here. Forcing people to do something they don't want is not the solution as it simply doesn't scale unless you don't want to go full tyranny. And this is exactly what that is - one group of privileged people thinking they are better than the others and therefore believe they have the authority to tell them what to do.
If you believe you have done your part in mitigating climate change because you have switched to an EV, please think again. You are very likely making the problem worse, because you stop thinking after that and religiously attempt to convert others with your ideology without taking into account their individual situation.
And yes, I really believe that people are, in general, good. Even after discussions like this.
I really did not want offend you tbh. but i talked to a lot of people regarding EVs. Most people care somehow but not enough at all to risk anything. They are even afraid of 'new technology'.
Alone last week when i discussed with the other owners of our apartmentbuilding to put solar panels on it, my 'for co2' was basically humoring the others.
Im also on hn for 10 years, i just spend too much time on it, unfortunate creating a new account is too simple :|.
Cars make 75% of transportation co2. Electricity and heating is only double of transportation. So its definitly relevant.
I don't think that EV is enough but its one of the few big changes we as a technology based society need to do.
But i also believe heavily in economy of scale and that an EV can be cheaper and easier to make in a few years than ICEs can. I also believe that EVs are necessary to really start the sustainable supply chain: we take renewable energy to make EVs and Batteries, use the resources of EVs and Batteries later to use them longer after second use and than recycle them to 99%.
Every ICE will always consume fuel.
We also have a huge benefit of investing money today into EV than ICE due to other synergies: Bi-directinal charging will help us to stabilize the grid for renewable. Cheap batteries help us to add more storage at home to use the solar enegy longer.
And in regards to forcing anyone: Again based on the jump in ocean temperature, weather changes in germany etc. i really think we need to do A LOT more A LOT faster. But this article is about EVs not about heat pumps, geothermal, etc.
> I really did not want offend you tbh. but i talked to a lot of people regarding EVs.
You accused me of trolling when I said that I believe people are good in general and that you shouldn't force them to do anything. I think you shouldn't be surprised if that comes across as an offense.
> Most people care somehow but not enough at all to risk anything. They are even afraid of 'new technology'.
You need to make it attractive for people. Think about the risk/reward here. People are not dumb. They know that investing into new technology comes with a risk per se from experience. They also know that their investment has a slim chance of doing anything to reduce global CO2 emissions because many other factors are at play here. Then, it's not even clear how much of that makes for the current warming. So you need to give them something which is an obvious benefit with regard to their current life situation. If you have access to charging at home, solar panels, and an EV, that's a financial benefit that doesn't need much more explaining. Now you need to find a way to make that accessible to everyone. Better charging infrastructure, increasing range, and bringing down the cost of the technology is key and it takes time.
"People would even be happy paying a bit more if it were beneficial for the environment." this triggered me because i had the discussion (as i wrote in my prev comment) with 5 people in their 50s and they found it funny when i said that even if the solar panels on the roof wouldn't help us directly, at least we would save co2 (my frustration with that group of people is high)
Yes it takes time but i strongly believe that this section of the curve can be shortened a lot by forcing companies by law, pushing consumers to risk a little bit more.
Do you regularly talk to older people or people outside of a big city? Because you constantly refute my points regarding this and all of those are examples of real encounters i had.
"Its easier to just go to a fuel station"
"Its cheaper"
"I like the sound of an engine"
"I want to be able to drive 1000km without a stop" (while driving not more than 50km per day ...)
"EVs explode"
. . .
One factor you aren't mentioning: EVs are a better experience overall. I love the way my EV drives (Model Y) and, there's no engine noise, and finally (this is a much smaller point) I can sit in the car and run the heat or A/C w/o an idling ICE powering that.
The majority of the noise, even at relatively low speeds, comes from the tires. Additionally the low noise at low speed is an actual danger to pedestrians, which deserves a remedy.
EVs also have significant drawbacks in usability. E.g. if you don't have person chargers or need to drive long distances.
>I love the way my EV drives
Which isn't a function of the electric Motor. ICE cars, especially in the Tesla price range have great suspension and steering tuning as well.
And? Seriously, who cares?
Of the qualities of an EV this is about the least important I can imagine. Aggressive acceleration does not make or break a good car.
For most people comfort is an important factor, there torque is irrelevant. Well tuned suspension, steering, high quality seats and a good infotainment system is important for that.
I didn't. I just told you that driving quality is not a unique feature of EVs.
In fact most your driving experience has no relation to the engine. High torque matters for fast acceleration, which is a fine thing to enjoy, but I absolutely prefer a good suspension and handling over 3s less 0 to 100km/h.
That's why I considered buying one in the first place.
I don't dislike EVs in general. It's just that the points I mentioned don't justify the benefits at this point for me.
"A better experience overall" should include the practical and economical factors. The primary purpose of a car is to get from A to B without going financially or temporally bankrupt.
We bought an EV 4 years ago and our second vehicle is still ICE. But it's not for any of the reasons you listed.
The EV is the far superior vehicle, both for road trips and local trips. We've done 4 2000 mile trips in it, and many 500 mile ones.
The reason we still have an ICE vehicle is because it's rarely used because it's so inferior. We only use it when we are going in two different directions simultaneously. It only gets 3000 miles/year of use, it's not worth replacing. It'll get replaced whenever something expensive on it dies.
Tesla is also getting a lot of competition from cheaper competitors and the interest rates going up is putting people off large sticker prices and their models aren't getting refreshed at the rate of other brands.
I think both @concordDance and
@littlestymaar are correct:
It's not all subsidies even though subsidies did play a big part. It's good that governments gave those subsidies out, and this is the right time to end them. The future is bright.
I disagree. While they have a sticker price implying luxury, they justify the price on the grounds of electricity being cheaper than petrol and diesel, not on build quality.
> I mean it did give a boost to ICE sales and make companies reconsider their jump away from those.
Always would in the short term, but the main cost and supply limit is batteries, and supply is now high enough (and cost low enough) that governments are better off just mandating the change rather than subsidising it; there's a few examples around the world of governments subsidising petrol, with the obvious results — everyone has backed the subsidy into their lives, and it would be political suicide to remove even in dictatorships.
>While they have a sticker price implying luxury, they justify the price on the grounds of electricity being cheaper than petrol and diesel, not on build quality.
Yes, certainly Tesla isn't known for build quality. But they don't even try to enter the low cost or budget EV market. High sticker prices for bad cars screams failed luxury to me.
They are premium, not a luxury. Never was a luxury.
As for competition in USA - name some cars that are competitive with Model 3.
In AU/NZ we do have quite a bit Chinese cars that are about 30% cheaper than Teslas, albeit much smaller and has less features, so they really compete against other small ICE vehicles.
The negative news is coming from vaguely respectable outlets, which means they don't generally outright lie, which means they do often agree that global sales are rising in paragraphs near the end.
They just put a lot of effort into promoting "bad vibes" whenever possible.
I'm not quite sure what the mechanism for this is, but we've seen exactly the same with wind power, solar PV, batteries etc.
We're now in the absurd position of China churning out all those things at scales and prices that scare the West, and will have deep and long lasting geopolitical implications.
Meanwhile, sections of the western press are taking victory laps, as if they were farsighted to predict this EV slowdown, that isn't actually happening. It's bizarre.
It’s just a different framing of the same data. The market is growing strongly, but not at the ludicrously high rate of growth it enjoyed previously. There are just so many ways to frame that, particularly as most people, including a lot of people on this very website, don’t understand the difference between growth and rate of growth.
The defining feature of this particular sales report seems to be that it is free. See the section titles "Information wants to be free".
> My goal today is simple: give you the best-detailed overview of 2023 EV sales globally that you can get anywhere, without you having to spend thousands of dollars to get it. Any dollars, for that matter.
I don't see the meta irony, the article doesn't say "difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it".
When you need politicians (one of the most hated occupations known to man) to force people to buy EVs with arbitrary legal mandates, the success of EVs is probably massively overexaggerated.
> By selling an objectively superior product that wins peoples' wallets.
Yeah, I have several bridges in Brooklyn to sell you if you think people or markets are rational.
If they would be, at least 20% (if not 40%) of this planet would be riding bikes to most places they go to. They don't, and they frequently campaign against improvements to bike infrastructure.
Electric cars are financially a lot of money up front for fairly minor savings long term. Which isn't so bad with interest rates in the 1-2% but with interest rates on car loans running around 8% it's a very difficult sell.
Also there is to consider if those savings will vaporize at some point when government starts to search for more revenues. With ICE they are likely to stay static or go some up. With EV taxation and usage fees anything can happen...
NZ is great example, recently blessed with new government. EVs now pay same road user charge as 3.5 tonne diesel truck. There were some promises to start charging gas cars using same model, but right now an efficient hybrid pays 2-3x less in road user tax than EV.
Still it's at least 2x cheaper to drive EV - power is super cheap here while gas is expensive.
It would need a more serious analysis to really get to the bottom of that but I think would hypothesise that electric cars being significantly more expensive than the equivalent ICE changes the dynamic slightly. It's harder to justify financing a more expensive product up-front in the hopes of running costs offsetting the cost later on when you have to pay significant interest on the difference.
Also, supply chain issues and inflation on underlying materials have obvious had significant impacts on sales over recent years.
It's been five months. Do we have enough data to make conclusions? Did the people who were going to buy an EV in February, buy ICEs instead? Could they just be saving for a little longer?
>It's been five months. Do we have enough data to make conclusions?
Car sales are up, EV sales are down. I can't think of an explanation which is more convincing.
>Could they just be saving for a little longer?
For what? I can't imagine anything which would turn me more off from buying an EV than saving for one and then being told I now need to pay thousands of Euros more. Surely every single person who was saving for one has now bought an ICE vehicle they can easily afford.
Of course many car sales are through financing and leases anyway.
Sure, capitalism wins here as usual - there has been well over a century worth of r&d to make insanely cheap ICE vehicles at scale. With electric vehicles, even Tesla doesn't have two decades (of which they spent a lot of time in small production) under their belt.
Take away the subsidies and ICE vehicles win out again - there is no other way than subsidies to overcome the chicken and egg problem.
The turn around in narrative from the pseudo-Libertarian community is fucking hilarious to me. Remember when big government and their industrial cronies conspired to kill the electric car? Cars with a fraction of the range or performance of modern electric cars.
Electric vehicles are probably the best compromise between practically and freedom from government interference you can buy. Literally throw some solar panels on your roof and charge your car, as long as you've got enough energy coming in you can drive where you like within about a 100 mile radius (further away you'll need some grid support).
Also considering how often they personally use EVs as government vehicles. Surely these should be first on the line to swap. And private citizens would follow this example.
That is the case, though. For a few years the only electric vans I saw around here were state and semi-state agencies (the post office, the gas and electricity networks, etc). Now private ones are showing up too.
Governments don’t operate many passenger cars, and that’s where the ev ‘revolution’ largely started, so you can’t expect them to have been doing this from the very start.
I mean ministers and other head of states. Like is there any single reason why Biden has not already replaced the Presidential state car with BEV? Surely if it is good enough for voters it is good enough for him.
Oh, right. That would be very expensive (head-of-state cars are often essentially one-offs, are replaced rarely, and have unusual operational requirements), and would seem rather performative? Ministerial cars etc would be more practical, but you're probably talking about, what, maximum 50 vehicles per country?
There was a minor scandal in Ireland last year because, of the 30 of so cars used for ministerial protection (this was only reintroduced as a thing the previous year; before that ministers had to get around on their own), only one was electric, and 9 of them weren't even PHEVs. This feels like relatively a fuss about nothing; the state (or semi-states) also operates over 2,000 buses, of which currently only about 100 are fully electric, say (another 300 on order). That feels like a better place to focus than a fleet of 30 cars, many of which don't see a lot of use.
>you're probably talking about, what, maximum 50 vehicles per country?
It's the principle of the matter.
It's like how politicians and talking heads flying by executive jet to a metropolitan dinner party can't and won't convince the commons to not travel and not eat hearty meals and not drink good booze.
I don't think it is; in this instance the electric car would be much more expensive than the mid-range Volvos or similar traditionally used in this role. Like, I'd expect that these cars will be electric sooner or later, but replacing them out of sync would probably not be the best use of funds.
Don't you remember the absolute furor when Nancy Pelosi was found out getting haircuts at her stylist and BoJo was off partying with his mates in the middle of the covid lockdowns, demanding/mandating everyone to stay home? The latter ultimately got fired for it.
You as a politician aren't going to convince anyone to buy 100% EV unless you do it first.
Scrap all your executive jets (and no flying at all for that matter), replace all your fueled ground vehicles with electric, handle as much if not all your politicking and diplomatizing remotely over the phone or internet (no more metropolitan dinner parties). Then we can talk about the commons also sacrificing likewise.
Incidentally, not leading by example (or Eating Your Own Dogfood) is one of the biggest reasons why politician is such a hated occupation.
Yeah exactly. Here are stats for New Zealand - since January 2024, there are no more government subsides for EVs. Easy to spot on the chart. https://evdb.nz/ev-stats
We need to see more EV personal vehicles — scooters, bicycles, etc.- and dedicated lanes and tracks for lightweight vehicles such as scooters and bicycles.
With Lone Smuk getting rid of his work force the future of EV cars is looking bleak.
Over reported and only from a positive perspective.
We need some balance in the reporting.
I have not seen any reports concerning what will happen to those, like me, who cannot afford an EV vehicle even when and if they become available on the second hand market.
What will happen when they become the only sole means of transport.
There will not be enough EV cars in the second hand market for people wanting to replace their old diesel and petrol cars when it becomes law.
I would happily give up driving if public transport was free and the Oyster cards data collection was disabled.
Re: Oyster card data collection, you can still buy then using cash.
Data is still collected if you use paper tickets on journeys, which you can also buy with cash.
If you are in a car, there is ANPR all over the place, if a car really needs to be found it can be.
This depends what your threat model is, unless it's a nation state you are going to be fine - but if it is, even without all the stuff that can be tracked + CCTV they could probably use good old manpower to folow you.
In fact, if anything, I would say it's overreported.
Regardless of what you think of the environment, this may be less consumer driven then governmental driven by policy. Something to think about anyway.
https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars/article-10127557/Al...
I don't live in the UK but I do wonder: is the infrastructure there truly ready? And does the average car owner think the whole charging time debacle is there as far as every day workability goes?
Again there are certain zones and fines can varie.
https://www.fleetnews.co.uk/news/call-for-early-ban-on-diese...
Right 17 years... Sarcasm
> Here in the UK soon they're going to start charging 10 pounds a day for residential vehicles that aren't zero pollution, commercial vehicles a day 60 pounds a day.
which is plainly not true.
My statement holds true as this does take place in the UK. I did clarify in a follow-up post that this takes place in certain zones in the UK. You conveniently left off about the different zones your quote from the original post. The number of these zones in the UK is increasing. People are indeed being charged per day for car is much newer than 17 years old. Legislation has passed to ban sale gasoline vehicles in the UK in 2035.
Legislation is driving EV sales which may not be representative the consumer. I don't disagree with improving our environment however it's hard to tease the effect this is having on the consumer choice with this type of legislation.
I don't drive so haven't been keeping up.
https://motorway.co.uk/sell-my-car/guides/ulez-compliant-car...
https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/cars/article-10127557/Al...
https://www.london.gov.uk/programmes-strategies/environment-...
Again these fines change by district.
https://www.fleetnews.co.uk/news/call-for-early-ban-on-diese...
"London introduced the ULEZ, which charges older, more polluting cars a fee to enter the city, in 2019.
Euro 6 diesel cars, or those produced in 2015 and prior, and Euro 4 petrol cars, or those produced 2006 or prior, have to pay £12.50 each day they enter.
T&E says that by replicating low emissions zones in cities throughout the country, the UK could enhance its energy security."
Edit:
I've found your link. It taxes gasoline cars older than 2006 (so 18+ years old) and diesel cars older than 2018 (so 6 years old). Which is super fair since those emit a ton of particulates, why should drivers be able to poison local residents for free?
There's no mention of an outright ban for ICE cars.
Well, very few people drive such old gasoline cars (outside of historic car collectors)... but a 6-12 year old diesel? Many people drive these.
The EU is especially failing on this front, VW should have been caught year before it was.
Ban selling new gas vehicles is 2035.
Even if the price of the cars comes down (and the used market grows and proves whether degraded batteries are a major issue or not), not enough people are talking about the prerequisite of owning your own home with its own parking space for the ability to charge at home.
If you have to park on the street, or live in an apartment, or rent your home, you may have no way to install a charger at home. And nobody wants to be at the mercy of public chargers alone (unreliable, queues, local monopolies hiking prices up).
Installing a charger only costs a couple hundred dollars, not insurmountable for renters but certainly an obstacle.
Even assuming that you can inconvenience large, double digit percentages of the population to use bikes as transportation, other large, double digit percentages of the population will fight bike infrastructure tooth and nail because for them it's worth (statistically) killing some people rather than slightly inconveniencing them.
Let alone fighting the car and oil and gas lobby.
I say this as a bike fan. I think bikes will ultimately win out a large share of transportation in most countries, in urban areas, but will be a long tough fight and I think we'll be where I hope everyone would be (the Netherlands) right about when I die, in 30-40-50 years...
Thie distance must be fairly short. You must be relatively young/fit/healthy/able-bodied. The weather must OK (not frequently too cold/hot/wet). The terrain must be fairly flat. The traffic conditions must be not-suicidal. There must secure bike storage at both ends. Ideally, shower/changing facilities at both ends for bad-weather days.
Not really a factor in dense urban environments. Everything within 5km is easily reachable within ~15 mins. Especially so once you factor in ebikes.
> You must be relatively young/fit/healthy/able-bodied.
Relatively is doing a lot of work there. This is not true for the most part and again, ebikes.
> The weather must OK (not frequently too cold/hot/wet).
The weather is mostly ok in most places most of the time. Frequency barely matters, you can always leave your bike home and walk/use public transportation instead if the weather that day isn't suitable.
> The terrain must be fairly flat.
Gears exist. Ebikes nullify this regardless.
> The traffic conditions must be not-suicidal.
This is the only real problem - dedicated biking infrastructure, physically separated from cars is required. However, it's usually an excuse more than a real issue. Biking infrastructure is astoundingly cheap compared to anything else.
> There must secure bike storage at both ends.
Depends on the trip type. It's usually not a problem due to extremely low cost - 5 U-shaped pipes attached to the ground gives you 10 bike parking spaces in a tiny area. If popping into a shop for 5 mins it's usually enough to just lock the bike to itself. It's unlikely a thief would carry off a bike in that time. Otherwise, keep the bike is naturally secure at home/workplace.
Plus, if it does get stolen, bikes are cheap and a dime a dozen.
> Ideally, shower/changing facilities at both ends for bad-weather days.
Unnecessary for most people in most conditions, but if it is an issue, usually cycling slower or getting an ebike works fine.
- first of all they are connected crapware on wheel, the formal human owner do not really own nothing. Oh, I have NOTHING against having GSM connectivity inside a car, but I want to control it, so instead of a crapplication bound to a crappy unreliable services hosted by the OEM I want an open API/website served by my car, directly accessible with dynamic DNS/my DNS, I do choose how to roll out updated, I read what updates do and so on. No connected commercial software should be allowed to roll. This last sentence is not a thing most people count, but they feel the crapware crappyness and they dislike and they do not trust it;
- for the material operation life (no matter if you re-sell the car quickly or not) they cost too much, oh, maybe not in China, but surely here in EU. Being built with far less parts, far less fine precision needed per part, far easier industrial assembly it's hard to justify BEV prices because of lithium or crapware costs...
- no real "new deal" integration, I do have p.v. at home, why the hell I can't buy an inverter with a simple DC out for 400V LFP car battery since I can buy 400V LFP stationary battery, DC charged from the p.v. inverter? Why wasting so much energy in a double conversion PVsideDC→CarInverterACtoDC? Why I can't use car battery to DC supply my inverter to power my home if I want so? Why only VERY recently CCS have set the first bi-direction DC standard and still no BEV implement it? Why not offer a 230Vac socket in the car, since the car have a V2L function only bound to the car charging port, witch do not allow operation when the car move (like simply powering a fridge in the car)? Most people would not use such options since most still have no PV, have no need to use 230Vac stuff in the car etc but selling them and advertising them would push people to see BEV as different beast than nice-to-drive but expensive limited range cars.
Personally I'm happy enough of my choice because WFH with PV in a mountain area the fuel economy is sound enough to buy a BEV, but well... That's not much a common scenario EVEN IF it should be, since ~30% of jobs can be done from home, and those who can have no reasons to be in a flat/apartment instead of a home. Especially to push energy efficiency in new constructions.
The manufacturers will adjust the prices a bit, and the electricity prices are stabilized.
For me the main factor was the feeling that I'm polluting the steet where my kids play way less every time I drive out.
Same happened with windmills. For the first ~20 years they needed subsidies to get built, but today they are so cheap (per kWh) that capitalists invest in them without needing any subsidies.
With China going full speed into EV production, the prices will drop.
With charging stations springing up everywhere, range axiety is going away and this will enable EVs with smaller batteries, which will reduce price.
It comes down to a few reasons for me:
* If you can't charge at home, EVs generally don't seem to make economical sense
* The charging network is not well enough developed, especially when considering peak times like public holidays etc.
* If you don't have access to the Tesla supercharger network, you will very likely overpay on charging. So much so that it makes an ICE car look cheap to refuel.
* Getting a used EV is still a very weird experience with one of the most important indicators very hard to determine: battery health
I wonder if evaluations similar to mine have led to many people in the US owning EVs only as their second car and still retain an ICE car "on the side" (or vice versa).
If these issues are not resolved, I expect the EV market share to top at about 30% for the foreseeable future. Hybrids and CNG vehicles seem to be a more economical and practical alternative for the masses while also significantly reducing emissions when compared to traditional ICE cars.
Nonetheless, you can charge your EV on a normal powerplug. Should be very easy for home owners to charge at home.
No clue about the charging network in US, in EU its good enough.
Tesla is cheaper and more expensive in germany, it highly depends on what you use.
EVs show that batterie life is no real issue. Not a bigger concern than your engine block breaking.
Hybrids have horrible co2 values and CNG are very limited available while a plug is available nearly everywere. I have charged at hotels often enough now.
EV is a lot more fun to drive and its easy to save a lot if you have solar panels. I don't think it will top at 30% (what a random number).
How frequently do you drive and how long are your trips? Where and on what network do you charge? What do you pay for charging?
> Nonetheless, you can charge your EV on a normal powerplug. Should be very easy for home owners to charge at home.
What if you aren't a home owner? What if you are a home owner and the car parking is too far away from your house?
> No clue about the charging network in US, in EU its good enough.
Where in the EU are you talking about? These all look like blanket statements to me as they don't consider the real context of a person trying to decide if an EV is practical for them.
> Tesla is cheaper and more expensive in germany
What does that mean?
> EVs show that batterie life is no real issue. Not a bigger concern than your engine block breaking.
An engine block breaking is a real issue. That's why mileage is reported and it's quite common to do inspections before buying a used car. Battery health is not reported and there is no straightforward way to do an inspection.
> EV is a lot more fun to drive and its easy to save a lot if you have solar panels.
What if you don't have solar panels and are on a budget? Does it help that it's fun to drive if you can't afford it or it makes your life impractical?
> 30% (what a random number)
I said "at about 30%". It's a gut guess, so not completely random.
I think in general this conversation is a good example of how some people assume that their privileged life situation is just normal and everybody owns a home with solar panels and a garage with a charger. But that's not true. Maybe 30% of people can afford that, hence my gut guess on the "random" number.
>How frequently do you drive and how long are your trips? Where and on what network do you charge? What do you pay for charging?
Between 40 and 60 cent per kWh. Around 1200km/month.
>> Nonetheless, you can charge your EV on a normal powerplug. Should be very easy for home owners to charge at home.
> What if you aren't a home owner? What if you are a home owner and the car parking is too far away from your house?
I'm a flat owner and got my charging setup 3 month ago in the underground parking lot. We had to discuss it in the owner meeting and germany made a law which enforces them to take it seriuos. If legal reasons are not solving your issue or you can't charge, you are probably not a good candidate for EV right now.
>> No clue about the charging network in US, in EU its good enough.
> Where in the EU are you talking about? These all look like blanket statements to me as they don't consider the real context of a person trying to decide if an EV is practical for them.
Same with your statement tbh. My EV can hold 500km / 310 miles. I have a charging spot 15 minutes away by foot. It really really didn't matter to me to think about charging a little bit more.
>> Tesla is cheaper and more expensive in germany
> What does that mean?
Tesla has daily rates, special offers and a membership. Others like EnBW has this too. There are a lot of apps and rates you can get from different companies. Tesla charging network is just one.
>> EVs show that batterie life is no real issue. Not a bigger concern than your engine block breaking.
> An engine block breaking is a real issue. That's why mileage is reported and it's quite common to do inspections before buying a used car. Battery health is not reported and there is no straightforward way to do an inspection.
But we do know from existing EVs (we have them already for a long time now) that the battery health is not a big issue.
>> EV is a lot more fun to drive and its easy to save a lot if you have solar panels.
> What if you don't have solar panels and are on a budget? Does it help that it's fun to drive if you can't afford it or it makes your life impractical?
No and people who can't afford it are not the people who should start buying EVs right now. I think thats a communication missconception. Plenty of people who can afford EVs are not buying them, if you are not the right person, your only action you should do is to say 'i want an affordable EV and laws making it possible'.
Nonetheless i'm a little bit idealistic and think we need to change.
>> 30% (what a random number)
> I said "at about 30%". It's a gut guess, so not completely random.
If you are not an automotive expert, your gut guess is random. Right now we are at 2%! If breakthroughs are happening (solid state, cheaper, ...) it can easily jump faster than you think. If you don't have anything to say why it should platoon at 30% its random.
> I think in general this conversation is a good example of how some people assume that their privileged life situation is just normal and everybody owns a home with solar panels and a garage with a charger. But that's not true. Maybe 30% of people can afford that, hence my gut guess on the "random" number.
I believe that people who are absolutly NOT in the position at all to think about EVs are feeling addressed.
Have to make generalized statements without experience. That's the important difference and why your claim that my statements are the same is wrong. I don't have experience with an EV in my current life situation. And I won't get that without buying an EV. So the only way I can judge if I should buy one is by making generalized statements and trying to get specific answers from people who have that experience. This is why the EV owners should be more careful about generalized claims than the ones who consider buying an EV.
> Nonetheless i'm a little bit idealistic and think we need to change.
Yes. I think we can boil this discussion down to that point. This is not about what solution is actually implementable for everyone. It's a very idealistic discussion.
In a lot of countries, there is legislation which is more or less enforcing EVs in the near future (2030/2035) on everyone without making it possible for them to reasonably own such a car. If this is a bet on a technology breakthrough in the next 5 years, then good luck with that. Otherwise, this seems to be just an attempt to exclude many (if not most) people from car ownership going forward, thereby further enhancing inequality while making those excluded feel bad about themselves.
The same reason why a lot of other things are necessary by government like getting rid of lead in wall color. Or other human rights.
The governance allows companies to push in a direction.
The interesting thing is not that someone sets a target, the interesting thing will be what happens if we don't achieve it. And its obvious that we can't enforce it if its not possible.
After all the poor people need to get to work and they are needed. I don't think anyone wants to exclude them from car ownership.
Arguably, that's not true. Tesla who apparently pioneered the recent success in EVs started off with that development without any subsidies. If the technology is good enough to justify a switch for people, it will work in the open market without any political push or subsidy. Subsidies generally lead to warped markets and wealth transfers which is neither evaluated nor accounted for usually, hence adding to the aforementioned increase in inequality.
> The interesting thing is not that someone sets a target, the interesting thing will be what happens if we don't achieve it. And its obvious that we can't enforce it if its not possible.
Why do you think that it's necessary to control people that way? I believe everybody would want the cleanest and best car possible regardless. People would even be happy paying a bit more if it were beneficial for the environment. That's not the issue. The issue is that it still has to work for them.
> After all the poor people need to get to work and they are needed. I don't think anyone wants to exclude them from car ownership.
Then why embrace policies that are based on hard limits, restrictions and punishments?
People don't act rational and plenty of people literaly don't care about the environment or other aspects.
Tesla was pushed by Elon Musk Money and he did this because he saw the market and had the money to disrupt it. Classical car manufacturer wouldn't have build EVs ever because they don't care.
Having a margin of 30% of classical build cars is nothing you spit on.
And there are plenty of market regulations which are most of the time here to protect or help us consumers. Shell, BP and co spending millions for lobbying.
From an economyical standpoint we also have an issue: Plenty of people don't know or don't care to solve the initial investment problem. Figting classical cars, were the market was optimized for 50 years is not easy to disrupt.
Basically non disruptive for consumers alone.
The punishment, hard limits and restrictions are not here to punish consumers but producers.
BMW you are not allowed to sell ICE Cars in europe 2030 vs. dear consumer you are not allowed to buy ICE cars in europe 2030.
Nonetheless in regards of our specific transition: We are actually trying to transition faster than normal because of climate change. We have a huge issue in our society regarding the relevants of this topic.
Old generations mostly ignore it or dont care, the young are frightend and we in the middle (me) im in the middle of my normal life while trying to push more for doing more.
For someone who thinks that a sudden increase in ocean temperature is a very bad sign, we can't wait until everyone has slowly and steadily transitioned. Instead the adoption curve has to be pushed.
Ok, that is the end of the discussion then. I think you are not in a position to claim that I am trolling when using a throwaway account that was created literally 3 hours ago.
If you believe that transitioning the planet from ICE cars to EVs will solve climate change, then I cannot help but say that I think this is more than unrealistic and misguided thinking. If it will make a difference at all, then it's only a very small part - not enough to reach the implied goal for sure. The entire transportation sector in the US accounts for roughly 30% of the US greenhouse gas emissions. Cars for individual transport are only a fraction of this. Swapping those over to EVs will not erase all CO2 emissions, but rather reduce them. This is because both production causes CO2 and electricity is partly generated using carbon emitting processes. We are thus talking about a small reduction of a part of a part and that needs to be put in context with the costs for that transition. Meanwhile, emissions in other places on the same planet is going up. Drastically.
We urgently need to rethink our approach to "normality" if we really aim to change anything about CO2 emissions at scale in a short period of time. Individual choices are the most important factor here. Forcing people to do something they don't want is not the solution as it simply doesn't scale unless you don't want to go full tyranny. And this is exactly what that is - one group of privileged people thinking they are better than the others and therefore believe they have the authority to tell them what to do.
If you believe you have done your part in mitigating climate change because you have switched to an EV, please think again. You are very likely making the problem worse, because you stop thinking after that and religiously attempt to convert others with your ideology without taking into account their individual situation.
And yes, I really believe that people are, in general, good. Even after discussions like this.
Alone last week when i discussed with the other owners of our apartmentbuilding to put solar panels on it, my 'for co2' was basically humoring the others.
Im also on hn for 10 years, i just spend too much time on it, unfortunate creating a new account is too simple :|.
Cars make 75% of transportation co2. Electricity and heating is only double of transportation. So its definitly relevant.
I don't think that EV is enough but its one of the few big changes we as a technology based society need to do.
But i also believe heavily in economy of scale and that an EV can be cheaper and easier to make in a few years than ICEs can. I also believe that EVs are necessary to really start the sustainable supply chain: we take renewable energy to make EVs and Batteries, use the resources of EVs and Batteries later to use them longer after second use and than recycle them to 99%.
Every ICE will always consume fuel.
We also have a huge benefit of investing money today into EV than ICE due to other synergies: Bi-directinal charging will help us to stabilize the grid for renewable. Cheap batteries help us to add more storage at home to use the solar enegy longer.
And in regards to forcing anyone: Again based on the jump in ocean temperature, weather changes in germany etc. i really think we need to do A LOT more A LOT faster. But this article is about EVs not about heat pumps, geothermal, etc.
You accused me of trolling when I said that I believe people are good in general and that you shouldn't force them to do anything. I think you shouldn't be surprised if that comes across as an offense.
> Most people care somehow but not enough at all to risk anything. They are even afraid of 'new technology'.
You need to make it attractive for people. Think about the risk/reward here. People are not dumb. They know that investing into new technology comes with a risk per se from experience. They also know that their investment has a slim chance of doing anything to reduce global CO2 emissions because many other factors are at play here. Then, it's not even clear how much of that makes for the current warming. So you need to give them something which is an obvious benefit with regard to their current life situation. If you have access to charging at home, solar panels, and an EV, that's a financial benefit that doesn't need much more explaining. Now you need to find a way to make that accessible to everyone. Better charging infrastructure, increasing range, and bringing down the cost of the technology is key and it takes time.
Yes it takes time but i strongly believe that this section of the curve can be shortened a lot by forcing companies by law, pushing consumers to risk a little bit more.
Do you regularly talk to older people or people outside of a big city? Because you constantly refute my points regarding this and all of those are examples of real encounters i had.
"Its easier to just go to a fuel station" "Its cheaper" "I like the sound of an engine" "I want to be able to drive 1000km without a stop" (while driving not more than 50km per day ...) "EVs explode" . . .
EVs also have significant drawbacks in usability. E.g. if you don't have person chargers or need to drive long distances.
>I love the way my EV drives
Which isn't a function of the electric Motor. ICE cars, especially in the Tesla price range have great suspension and steering tuning as well.
2) I have a home charger--Yes, I have to plug in the car every other day, but I also never have to visit a gas station again.
For most people comfort is an important factor, there torque is irrelevant. Well tuned suspension, steering, high quality seats and a good infotainment system is important for that.
In fact most your driving experience has no relation to the engine. High torque matters for fast acceleration, which is a fine thing to enjoy, but I absolutely prefer a good suspension and handling over 3s less 0 to 100km/h.
>Which isn't a function of the electric Motor.
If the torque is what they love it is a function of the electric motor though
Even the fast acceleration is not purely the result of the motor.
I don't dislike EVs in general. It's just that the points I mentioned don't justify the benefits at this point for me. "A better experience overall" should include the practical and economical factors. The primary purpose of a car is to get from A to B without going financially or temporally bankrupt.
The EV is the far superior vehicle, both for road trips and local trips. We've done 4 2000 mile trips in it, and many 500 mile ones.
The reason we still have an ICE vehicle is because it's rarely used because it's so inferior. We only use it when we are going in two different directions simultaneously. It only gets 3000 miles/year of use, it's not worth replacing. It'll get replaced whenever something expensive on it dies.
Do you have access to charging at home?
That's the single most decisive factor in my estimation for whether an EV can replace an ICE car realistically or not at this time.
I think both @concordDance and @littlestymaar are correct:
It's not all subsidies even though subsidies did play a big part. It's good that governments gave those subsidies out, and this is the right time to end them. The future is bright.
>this is the right time to end them
I mean it did give a boost to ICE sales and make companies reconsider their jump away from those.
I disagree. While they have a sticker price implying luxury, they justify the price on the grounds of electricity being cheaper than petrol and diesel, not on build quality.
> I mean it did give a boost to ICE sales and make companies reconsider their jump away from those.
Always would in the short term, but the main cost and supply limit is batteries, and supply is now high enough (and cost low enough) that governments are better off just mandating the change rather than subsidising it; there's a few examples around the world of governments subsidising petrol, with the obvious results — everyone has backed the subsidy into their lives, and it would be political suicide to remove even in dictatorships.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidies_in_Iran
Yes, certainly Tesla isn't known for build quality. But they don't even try to enter the low cost or budget EV market. High sticker prices for bad cars screams failed luxury to me.
As for competition in USA - name some cars that are competitive with Model 3.
In AU/NZ we do have quite a bit Chinese cars that are about 30% cheaper than Teslas, albeit much smaller and has less features, so they really compete against other small ICE vehicles.
basically we've reached "the truth they don't want you to hear about" levels of information
An EV website selling an EV sales report says the EV market is doing better than everyone else says. Hmmm.
They just put a lot of effort into promoting "bad vibes" whenever possible.
I'm not quite sure what the mechanism for this is, but we've seen exactly the same with wind power, solar PV, batteries etc.
We're now in the absurd position of China churning out all those things at scales and prices that scare the West, and will have deep and long lasting geopolitical implications.
Meanwhile, sections of the western press are taking victory laps, as if they were farsighted to predict this EV slowdown, that isn't actually happening. It's bizarre.
> My goal today is simple: give you the best-detailed overview of 2023 EV sales globally that you can get anywhere, without you having to spend thousands of dollars to get it. Any dollars, for that matter.
When you need politicians (one of the most hated occupations known to man) to force people to buy EVs with arbitrary legal mandates, the success of EVs is probably massively overexaggerated.
How do you break the stranglehold of probably 30-50% of the economy being closely tied or part of oil and gas and the automotive industries?
"The market" might solve this problem in 200 years, when Earth would look like Mercury.
Apple singlehandedly killed off the entire flipphone and boardphone (Blackberry) markets.
It's definitely hard and rightfully so, but it's not impossible.
Yeah, I have several bridges in Brooklyn to sell you if you think people or markets are rational.
If they would be, at least 20% (if not 40%) of this planet would be riding bikes to most places they go to. They don't, and they frequently campaign against improvements to bike infrastructure.
We're all going to burn at this rate.
Also this contempt for politicians in general is unhelpful and only serves to put more and more unscrupulous and dishonest people in those positions.
Still it's at least 2x cheaper to drive EV - power is super cheap here while gas is expensive.
Porsche sold more cars than they did the year before.
Also, supply chain issues and inflation on underlying materials have obvious had significant impacts on sales over recent years.
Car sales are up, EV sales are down. I can't think of an explanation which is more convincing.
>Could they just be saving for a little longer?
For what? I can't imagine anything which would turn me more off from buying an EV than saving for one and then being told I now need to pay thousands of Euros more. Surely every single person who was saving for one has now bought an ICE vehicle they can easily afford.
Of course many car sales are through financing and leases anyway.
Take away the subsidies and ICE vehicles win out again - there is no other way than subsidies to overcome the chicken and egg problem.
An EV isn't magic, it is still a car, much of the car R&D still applies.
Electric vehicles are probably the best compromise between practically and freedom from government interference you can buy. Literally throw some solar panels on your roof and charge your car, as long as you've got enough energy coming in you can drive where you like within about a 100 mile radius (further away you'll need some grid support).
Governments don’t operate many passenger cars, and that’s where the ev ‘revolution’ largely started, so you can’t expect them to have been doing this from the very start.
There was a minor scandal in Ireland last year because, of the 30 of so cars used for ministerial protection (this was only reintroduced as a thing the previous year; before that ministers had to get around on their own), only one was electric, and 9 of them weren't even PHEVs. This feels like relatively a fuss about nothing; the state (or semi-states) also operates over 2,000 buses, of which currently only about 100 are fully electric, say (another 300 on order). That feels like a better place to focus than a fleet of 30 cars, many of which don't see a lot of use.
It's the principle of the matter.
It's like how politicians and talking heads flying by executive jet to a metropolitan dinner party can't and won't convince the commons to not travel and not eat hearty meals and not drink good booze.
Don't you remember the absolute furor when Nancy Pelosi was found out getting haircuts at her stylist and BoJo was off partying with his mates in the middle of the covid lockdowns, demanding/mandating everyone to stay home? The latter ultimately got fired for it.
You as a politician aren't going to convince anyone to buy 100% EV unless you do it first.
Scrap all your executive jets (and no flying at all for that matter), replace all your fueled ground vehicles with electric, handle as much if not all your politicking and diplomatizing remotely over the phone or internet (no more metropolitan dinner parties). Then we can talk about the commons also sacrificing likewise.
Incidentally, not leading by example (or Eating Your Own Dogfood) is one of the biggest reasons why politician is such a hated occupation.
With Lone Smuk getting rid of his work force the future of EV cars is looking bleak.
Over reported and only from a positive perspective.
We need some balance in the reporting.
I have not seen any reports concerning what will happen to those, like me, who cannot afford an EV vehicle even when and if they become available on the second hand market.
What will happen when they become the only sole means of transport.
There will not be enough EV cars in the second hand market for people wanting to replace their old diesel and petrol cars when it becomes law.
I would happily give up driving if public transport was free and the Oyster cards data collection was disabled.
Looks like its back to the old SHANKS'S PONY!
Data is still collected if you use paper tickets on journeys, which you can also buy with cash.
If you are in a car, there is ANPR all over the place, if a car really needs to be found it can be.
This depends what your threat model is, unless it's a nation state you are going to be fine - but if it is, even without all the stuff that can be tracked + CCTV they could probably use good old manpower to folow you.
If you can't afford any EV right now, you are not the target right now anyway