Has America Passed the 'Tipping Point' for Purchasing Electric Vehicles? (msn.com) 314
Long-time Slashdot reader 140Mandak262Jamuna shared this article from the Washington Post:
There is a theoretical, magic tipping point for adoption of electric vehicles. Once somewhere between 5 and 10 percent of new car sales are all-electric, some researchers say, huge numbers of drivers will follow. They predict that electric car sales will then soar — to 25 percent, 50 percent and eventually to close to 80 percent of new sales. Early adopters who love shiny new technologies will be replaced by mainstream consumers just looking for a good deal. Last year, the United States finally passed that elusive mark — 5 percent of all new cars sold in the fourth quarter were fully electric. And earlier this year, all-electric vehicles made up about 7 percent of new car sales...
If the pattern holds, the United States should start to see rapid growth in the next few years. And automakers have gone all-in on the transition. As of early 2023, U.S.-based car companies have announced about $173 billion in spending to shift to electric vehicles. Volkswagen, Ford, BMW, General Motors, and many more car companies are all making electric cars. There are more than 40 all-electric models on offer in the United States.
The article points out that in Norway, more than 80% of cars purchased are now fully electric.
For comparision, in the first half of 2023 in California, about 25% of new-car purchases were electric vehicles.
If the pattern holds, the United States should start to see rapid growth in the next few years. And automakers have gone all-in on the transition. As of early 2023, U.S.-based car companies have announced about $173 billion in spending to shift to electric vehicles. Volkswagen, Ford, BMW, General Motors, and many more car companies are all making electric cars. There are more than 40 all-electric models on offer in the United States.
The article points out that in Norway, more than 80% of cars purchased are now fully electric.
For comparision, in the first half of 2023 in California, about 25% of new-car purchases were electric vehicles.
Inevitability (Score:5, Insightful)
I am not sure about any "tipping point" as such but there is no question that much of the FUD directed at EVs has been tamped down. It will never die out.
What I am sure about is had Elon Musk not taken over Tesla and took the risks that he took in order to make the company's products successful, there would not be any EV market of note today. In 2023.
Instead you would still be getting position papers from all the major auto makers to the effect "EV technology is certainly interesting but is simply not economically viable at the current stage of development. We are looking into hydrogen as the fuel of the future."
And of course all the industry pundits except a few cranks would endlessly prattle on about all the problems with BEVs. Actually some of them are still doing it. The difference is fewer people listen to them.
Re: (Score:2)
I am not sure about any "tipping point" as such
There definitely is. Most people need to know somebody who has one before they take the plunge.
Once they experience it, they'll be converts.
This, together with the Cybertruck about to launch and a new cheap Tesla model 3 will see a massive boom in sales real soon now.
.
Re: (Score:2)
Bet you are waiting for that new Amiga to come out any day now.
CT about to launch, LOL!
Re: (Score:2)
>"There definitely is. Most people need to know somebody who has one before they take the plunge. Once they experience it, they'll be converts."
Yes and no.
You are correct that most people will want to know someone they trust with experience using the new technology, first. But they like won't take the plunge until there is a model meeting THEIR wants and requirements that is available, and at a price they can afford. Neither is the case for huge swaths of buyers right now.
>"This, together with the C
EV fanbois [Re: Inevitability] (Score:2)
I know plenty of EV fanbois. One lives in Manhattan and doesn't even own a car, but swears that when he does...
In terms of transportation, the guy who lives in Manhattan is for certain the most energy efficient.
Another one has a big ol gas guzzler for his second vehicle. Actually quite a few of them fall into that category.
This is a good strategy. Use the EV for day to day use, but use the second vehicle for long trips. Since the majority of households in the US have more than one vehicle, this is a good adoption approach: use different vehicles for different niches.
A bunch of folks have plug-in hybrids that technically count as EVs and get EV plates.
As they should. On the average, a car in the U.S. drives 37 miles per day, so mostly a plug-in hybrid is an EV, but they have a gas engine for when that's not enou
Re: Inevitability (Score:5, Insightful)
But if 5% of all car buyers go BEV, this means that shops will reserve parking lots for BEV to recharge. It means that apartment blocks will allocate parking space with charging facilities. It will mean that utilities will offer wall boxes and other stuff aimed ad BEV owners. It means that rental fleets will offer BEVs. It means that employers offer BEV charging on site as a goodie. Hotel chains will offer guest BEV charging. Because 5% of the market, consisting mainly of well-off people, will not be ignored.
And this paves the way for other people because now, BEV infrastructure is prevalent. You can commute with BEVs. You can go shopping with BEVs. Motels will offer BEV charging. And each BEV represents an internal combustion vehicle not sold. This means that the economy of scale for ICVs slowly deteriorates. Gas stations will not have the same revenue, forcing them to increase the marge per gallon on their fuel. Repair shops will have to charge more per job, to pay the fixed costs for their facilities. Some gas stations will close. Some repair stations will change their business. It will become more and more cumbersome and more and more expensive to own an internal combustion vehicle. Thus it will become less and less attractive to own such a car. At the same time, economics of scale will improve for BEVs. Opportunities which only work for BEVs will pop up.
That's what tipping point means. It sets a movement in motion, where in the end, even people never planning to go for an BEV will look for one as their next car, because the alternatives are less viable.
Re: (Score:2)
Because you've cherry-picked examples specifically because they aren't "a ringing endorsement for BEVs as a suitable mass replacement for a gas powered car."
Cars are often status symbols, it should come as no surprise that there are BEVs targeted as status symbols, that's all Tesla makes. It says nothing about the ability of EVs to replace "a gas powered car", no matter what conclusion you wish to arrive at.
Re:Inevitability (Score:4, Insightful)
>"there is no question that much of the FUD directed at EVs has been tamped down. It will never die out. "
There are real concerns about BEVs, like charging, dealer support, range, and safety. And there are some great advantages- [possibly] charging at home, quiet, some aspects of performance, reliability, less service. Consumers need time to become educated about the new technology and also to experience it through friends/family. Time they simply haven't had yet. But it will come.
Many will be truly stuck due to lack of realistic at-home charging. Which, right now, is pretty crucial for a good experience. If you live in an apartment/condo/townhome or have on-street or group-parking, you are much more likely to not have a reasonable experience.
The main problems now are:
1) Charging options
2) Price
3) Model choice/variety availability to meet what the customer wants/demands
All three problems are going to get better over time. But for the vast majority, these three are going to hold off their jump. And those people who want to pretend these aren't issues right now are delusional.
Re: (Score:3)
There is a tipping point, but we aren't close to it. We need a stronger electric grid, more generation, and reliable ways for people who don't own their own houses to charge the vehicles.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There is a tipping point, but we aren't close to it. We need a stronger electric grid, more generation,
That's the new line the oil companies have been pushing, in their continuing goal to denigrate electric vehicles. It's bullshit.
Since people generally charge their cars at night, when the grid is underutilized, no, the electric grid is not about to be overloaded because people buy electric cars.
and reliable ways for people who don't own their own houses to charge the vehicles.
Right now that's not a problem because there is a large market of people who do have places to charge their vehicles.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
We need a stronger electric grid, more generation
Actually, we don't. Even if we switched to 100% EVs tomorrow, it would only add 20% to electricity demand. Most EVs are charged in the middle of the night when there is plenty of excess capacity.
America's generation utilization averages 40%. A 20% increase would make it 48%. As long as the extra demand doesn't come at peak times (and it won't), that isn't a problem.
and reliable ways for people who don't own their own houses to charge the vehicles.
Yes. This is a big problem. We need a lot more charging points in parking lots and on the street.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What are these "long-term problems" that are supposedly just hiding behind the corner?
Re: Inevitability (Score:5, Informative)
FUD, pure and simple.
[Fire Risk] .03% likely to ignite, compared to 1.5% for gas-powered vehicles and 3.4% for hybrid vehicles. CarsDover summarizes the NTSB statistics [carsdover.com] nicely.
Lots of scary stories out there about Lithium fires and how EVs are so dangerous and can spontaneously combust. While Lithium is a metal, and the fires are seriously challenging, the simple fact is EVs are less likely than ICE or Hybrids to catch fire. According to the NTSB, there are an average of over 200,000 vehicle fires in the U.S. each year, with ICE cars being the most both in absolute terms (because they are the most on the road). You don't read about them every day because there are over 600 every day and that is "dog bites man" and isn't NEWS anymore. EVs are new and even though SAFER and cause fewer fires per mile driven, they're a novel "man bites dog [wikipedia.org]" and thus make the news. Battery-electric vehicles are only
[Excessive Vehicle Weight]
I've seen lots of disinformation out there about EVs being heavier so they damage the roads more and thus should be charged more in fees. This is factually incorrect. The average EVs are slightly heavier than mid-sized ICE sedans, but well under the standard American pick-up truck or SUV. To prove this, I went to Kelly Blue Book's site to get vehicle sales numbers for 2023, then either the manufacturer's website or Edmunds.com to get the vehicle curb weights. The short answer is the #1, 2, and 3 sales figures in the U.S. are for pickup trucks: the Ford F-Series, Chevy Silverados, and Ram (nee Dodge) series, and they're all heavier than most EVs. Only the Tesla X Plaid compares -- well, and the F-150 Lightning, Rivian R1T, and Hummer EV, but if you can afford $80,000 - $120,000 for a vehicle, you can afford a weight tax. So NOT cherry-picking super expensive, extra large vehicles gets us this:
Kelley Blue Book - 25 Best-Selling Cars of 2023, So Far (07/17/2023) [kbb.com]
Curb Weights from either Edmunds.com or Manufacturer's site
Rank, Make/Model, Units Sold YTD, Curb Weight in Pounds
1. Ford F-Series (212,516) - 4,021 - 5,886# Depending on cab style & engine
2. Chevy Silverado (140,076) - 4,750 - 5,600# Depending on cab style & engine
3. Ram Pickup (117,699) - 4,765 - 6,439# Depending on cab style & engine
4. Tesla Y (105,500) - 4,415#
5. Toyota RAV4 (102,313) - 3,450#
6. Honda CR-V (96,456) - 3,926#
7. Toyota Camry (84,705) - 3,340#
8. GMC Sierra(75,810) - See Silverado Numbers, Same Truck, Different Badge
9. Nissan Rogue (71,246) - 3,616#
10. Jeep Grand Cherokee (70,454) - 4,413#
For Comparison Select EVs:
* Hyundai Ioniq 6 (4,990) - 3,950 - 4,650# Depending on trim level
* Tesla Model 3 (63,001) 3,582 - 4,065# SR, LR+P
EVs have fewer fires that ICE vehicles and their weight is right in line with popular American automobiles, with only a few hundred pounds more in some cases.
Re: (Score:2)
The only magic Musk gives any company, is money. And we have enough oligarchs that can do that today.
To believe that Musk started the whole EV revolution around the world is pretty FUD in itself.
That being said, Tesla sucks, Im getting my EV from another company. Should be here within a few months.
Re: (Score:2)
What I am sure about is had Elon Musk not taken over Tesla and took the risks
The move towards electric cars happened independently of Tesla on several continents. Manufacturers just have been taking their time as they are not a "move fast, break things" industry. The hybrid Toyota Prius is on the streets since 1997. The fully electric Nissan Hypermini had a first sale in Sept. 1999. The Nissan Leaf is in the streets since Dec. 2010. The Renault ZOÉ (at a point the most popular EV in Europe) was presented as prototype in 2005 and on the streets in Dec. 2012. The fully electric B
Re: (Score:2)
What I am sure about is had Elon Musk not taken over Tesla and took the risks that he took in order to make the company's products successful, there would not be any EV market of note today. In 2023.
I'm not so sure about that. One thing to note about Elon Musk is that his successes, like Tesla, SpaceX and and Starlink are all old ideas that have been tried before, but the available technology just wasn't there yet for them to be successful and sustainable. His endeavors were a success because they were ideas whose time had come. He did recognize that their time had come, but people tend to forget since he "won" in the market that there were a lot of people and organizations that realized these things t
Re: (Score:3)
Well, but they actually do cost jobs. Of course they also create jobs, but those aren't the same jobs, and it's not certain there will be as many of them.
If you were an auto-worker this would be a major concern. I'm not, but I don't have to be one to acknowledge the problem. Partially its because the EVs are built on new production lines that are a lot more highly automated. Partially its because there's no complex drive train. And partially its because the things are designed to only be repaired by th
Re:Inevitability (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, but they actually do cost jobs.
Yes, and that is a good thing. Those people can be productively employed elsewhere in the economy.
If the goal is to "create jobs", just require ditch diggers to use teaspoons instead of shovels.
Re: (Score:2)
EVs costing jobs is a good thing, because it means that EVs make the economy more efficient.
However, its not clear that that is the case, because EVs require a huge number of other jobs, such as building infrastructure to support their power needs, including in people's homes, transmission lines, charging stations, windmills, solar arrays, rare earth and other mines, ...
Re:Inevitability (Score:5, Insightful)
EVs costing jobs is a good thing, because it means that EVs make the economy more efficient.
However, its not clear that that is the case, because EVs require a huge number of other jobs, such as building infrastructure to support their power needs, including in people's homes, transmission lines, charging stations, windmills, solar arrays, rare earth and other mines, ...
Change is always a good thing until you yourself become obsoleted. That's not an argument against change, just a recognition that there is a significant human toll that is most certainly NOT a good thing
Re:Inevitability (Score:5, Insightful)
The cost of all objects ultimately comes down to human labour, at some point in the supply chain. When UAW says "electric vehicles cost jobs", what they really mean is that they cost final assembly jobs, since EVs are easier to build (and getting easier all the time). More of the value chain is earlier in the process. Capture the early value chain and you still have tons of jobs. E.g., don't just import your batteries, don't outsource raw material refining, don't outsource recycling, etc.
Re:Inevitability (Score:5, Informative)
Literally half of all auto plants in the US are non-union. Don't pretend like this is something that Tesla invented.
Tesla does not generally import cars from China to the US (unlike some other auto manufacturers). China production is mainly for the domestic market, as well as for markets that don't have their own factories.
The shifts that you're describing were from when Shanghai was locked down due to COVID, in a system designed by the local government and widely applied to factories in the region. Not just factories - even office work was subject to such work-lockdown systems.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yes, all those Trump supporters. In the UAW leadership. Yep... lots of Trump supporters there yessireebob. I mean, it's gotta be 10% at LEAST.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Ugly... [Re:Inevitability] (Score:2)
Cybertruck is fucking ugly.
Yep. But I like ugly. Sometimes ugly is cute. I'd get one, except I don't think it would fit in my garage-- American pick-up trucks are huge.
(Nobody talks about how ugly they are much anymore because everything there is to say about how ugly they are has already been said.)
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone knows the CT is joke by now, and saying it is ugly isn't worth anyone's time. We all just have a laugh about it occasionally.
Besides, didn't Putin buy the first year's production of the CT, if it ever occurs?
Re: (Score:2)
The same place where people excited about the cybertruck went. At some point after a few years of hearing nothing about it, people all realized there is nothing to talk about so we stopped. I'll be surprised if there will ever be an actual product. Now that I think about it, I forgot to ask for my $100 back.
Re: (Score:2)
"I forgot to ask for my $100 back."
Good luck!
"I'll be surprised if there will ever be an actual product."
There will be. Tesla isn't an auto manufacturer, it's a vehicle for Elon Musk's ego. His ego would not accept cancelling the worst car/truck of all time, that turd will land in the punchbowl eventually.
Re: (Score:2)
On a related note: Where did all the people saying "Cybertruck is fugly!" go? They were everywhere a year ago but now there's not a single one left.
That truck was so delayed, probably everyone stopped thinking about it. But here you go - the Cybertruck is fugly. On top of that, it's not well-designed for people who will actually make use of a truck. There is a better option already available (F-150 Lightning), and a possibly even better one coming soon (Silverado EV).
The Rivian R1T looks pretty cool... but, like the Cybertruck, it looks to have been designed by someone who's never used an actual pickup truck.
Re:Electric Vehicles Cost Jobs (Score:5, Informative)
"Ehh", despite the Model S being affordable to 1/100th as many people as the Leaf, there wasn't a huge gulf between their US sales numbers [i.redd.it], which says a lot about what Americans thought about the future promised by the Leaf vs. the future promised by the Model S.
Re: (Score:2)
DID YOU LOOK AT THE GRAPH YOU JUST LINKED TO?
It shows a literal "huge gulf" between the Model S and the Leaf. That, despite the Leaf being primarily a fleet vehicle NOT intended to appeal to individual "Americans". Nissan delivered on the future promised by the Leaf, you just misrepresent it.
It's remarkable what buying a few shares of Tesla stock does to a person's integrity. Of course, to invest in Elon Musk requires serious personal shortcomings anyway.
Re:Electric Vehicles Cost Jobs (Score:5, Insightful)
ARE YOU AWARE OF THE CONCEPT OF THE PASSAGE OF TIME, OR DOES YOUR ABILITY TO UNDERSTAND TIME'S LINEAR FLOW DISAPPEAR WHEN YOUR CAPS LOCK IS ON?
Leaf's lead on cumulative production was developed before Model S came out. Once Model S came out (and esp. after its production ramped), Leaf only slightly outpaced Model S sales. Notice how the lines are basically parallel from 2014 onward? That means similar numbers of sales.
Amazing what having a chip on one's shoulder does to one's ability to read a graph.
Re: Electric Vehicles Cost Jobs (Score:3)
Re: Inevitability (Score:3)
The guy you're responding to already knows this. You're wasting your breath... or keystrokes.
Change in mindset [Re:Inevitability] (Score:2)
...What might have happened otherwise cannot be known, but a large driver of BEV was DieselGate in the US.
I'd say that without Tesla vehicles showing that a battery vehicle can be more than a high-priced compact, the response to DieselGate would not have been a push toward EVs.
What Tesla did was to change the mindset about EVs from "can do what a compact car does, only more expensive and you can't drive as far," to "the best performance you can buy".
Re:Inevitability (Score:5, Insightful)
BEV was resisted because of charging infrastructure. It's still resisted due to charging infrastructure. We don't know if there would be a better world if resources were invested differently, we live with what we have.
In the US, Musk was the only major car company CEO to recognize the need to develop charging infrastructure for road trips. The others saw it as something that other companies would provide, like gas stations. They also built cars with "fast charging" limited to 50kW.
Developing the Supercharger network has been hugely important to the uptake of EVs and particularly Teslas.
Other regions are different: for example, Europe mandated CCS2, which has leveled the playing field.
Re: (Score:2)
Tesla is definitely leading the EV market in Europe.
Re: Inevitability (Score:4, Informative)
Tesla's share of the European market (where it is financially disadvantaged) has remained relatively constant over the years, 15-20% or so, with some spikes up and down. The main trend that's happened in the European market is the utter collapse of Nissan (from half the market down to like 2-3%), and the more recent growth Chinese imports.
Re: Inevitability (Score:4, Insightful)
Here in Denmark the Tesla Model Y is the most sold car including ICE cars. Tesla is also the brand with most sold cars, including ICE cars, in 2023. How is that neither a major player nor leading?
Re: (Score:3)
You are clearly wrong, both by model and maker
https://cleantechnica.com/2023... [cleantechnica.com]
Choices (Score:5, Insightful)
>"Once somewhere between 5 and 10 percent of new car sales are all-electric, some researchers say, huge numbers of drivers will follow."
I think that entirely depends on availability of choice. If we don't have the models, sizes, features consumers want, they will continue to delay. I am in that boat. I want a traditional, higher-end, performance sedan. I don't want a coupe. I don't want an SUV. I don't want a truck. I don't want a cross-over. I don't want an econo-box. I also don't want something that looks like a UFO or has no real dash board or controls. I don't even want self-driving stuff. There are almost no choices for me right now, at least nothing affordable. But there have been and still are for ICE models.
Understandingly, the first waves of BEV seek to be "different" in design, shape, function. This tends to excite the tiny, more radical consumers, who have the money, passion, and desire to jump on something cool, unusual, different. But the vast majority of people don't want novel. And they are not so interested in virtue-signaling, either. We have probably saturated first-adopters quite a while ago.
Consumers are used to having choice in features, size, style, color, performance, etc. You aren't going to get that now with electric vehicles available. This will cap how many people are willing to jump- and all that is also keeping in mind the other big obstacle, pricing.
Re: (Score:2)
Challenge is that even with ICE, sedans and coups are endangered species. Some models are still hanging in there, but fewer and fewer models each year. As things are going, about the closest you'll get is a hatchback calling itself an 'SUV'.
GM EVs look to mostly cover what you describe, apart from the sedan/coup, with a more traditional feeling automobile experience that just happens to have an EV drive train.
One mitigating factor for me has been that while I am driving an SUV/Hatchback, the front can ope
Re: (Score:2)
>"Challenge is that even with ICE, sedans and coups are endangered species."
You are not wrong.
People are trading efficiency, economy, and performance (acceleration, stopping, AND cornering) for storage and... what, sitting higher and more mass? Don't get me wrong, I completely understand the role and attraction of "SUV"s and such. There are some rare times I need to move something bigger and am stuck. But sometimes I wonder if there is some pack-mentality going on.
Re: (Score:2)
I think that entirely depends on availability of choice. If we don't have the models, sizes, features consumers want, they will continue to delay. I am in that boat. I want a traditional, higher-end, performance sedan. I don't want a coupe. I don't want an SUV. I don't want a truck. I don't want a cross-over. I don't want an econo-box. I also don't want something that looks like a UFO or has no real dash board or controls. I don't even want self-driving stuff. There are almost no choices for me right now, at least nothing affordable. But there have been and still are for ICE models.
So you want "higher-end, peformance sedan" but you also want it to be affordable? Because there are higher-end peformance EV sedans. Not super affordable but then, nothing is nowadays. What would be your equivalent ICE car?
Juding by recent sales trends, regular people mostly just want ugly CUVs and trucks so that should be covered pretty much.
Re: (Score:2)
>"So you want "higher-end, peformance sedan" but you also want it to be affordable? Because there are higher-end peformance EV sedans. Not super affordable but then, nothing is nowadays. What would be your equivalent ICE car?"
You are right that all cars have been getting more expensive. (It is also true that cars, in general, have been overshadowed by "SUV"s now). One can meet my goal with around a $50-60K ICE or a $70K-$90K BEV. That is a huge price increase. Look at something like these to compare
Re: (Score:2)
This is a great point. I am something of an EV enthusiast, at least insofar as I'm excited about the transition to electric. I drove the Tesla and enjoyed its zippy acceleration but wanted nothing to do with its tech bro bachelor pad interior. I ended up with a Pacifica PHEV minivan, which I like a lot. If it had 50 more miles of range (currently has 35 mi) I'd be ecstatic about it.
So I'm totally with you that the market has not yet filled in on styles and models that a lot of car buyers still want. The nex
Re: (Score:2)
Grid wont collapse. The grid collapse scenario is pure FUD.
15,000 miles a year works out to 1250 miles a month, 40 miles a day, 10 kWh of charge. From your standard 120V-15Amp outlet you plug your toaster in, it will take 5 hours.
Oh, yeah we have TWO cars per house.
OK, that is keeping your toaster going for 10 hours?
What would happen to the grid if EVERY house in the neighbourhood keeps a toaster going all night long?
The home A/C is 4 kW
Re: (Score:3)
Here is the definition of tipping point that is in use for this article.
I have a gun pointed to your head. I give you 30 seconds to hand over your wallet. According to researchers, the tipping point at which most people will hand over their wallet is after about 5 seconds.
Exactly. To move past early adopters, (Score:2)
manufacturers will have to sell without the early adopter tax. It's been long enough to get down the learning curve and have mass production pricing.
Re: (Score:2)
You missed my point.
I was retorting the original article's premise that just because 5% of sales are BEV we will suddenly/magically have a wild increase of sales. That is not necessarily true BECAUSE there is still so limited amount of choice.
It might increase interest a lot. But I don't think it will necessarily equate to sales. You will just have more people WILLING to go BEV but won't because they can't get a model that does was they want or that they can afford.
USA adoption rate would be slower (Score:5, Informative)
Gas is a lot cheaper in USA compared to Europe so the incentives are smaller, in the first place.
Lots of European companies leases cars for their executives and managers. It is considered in-kind-compensation and taxed as income tax. The tax bill depends on total cost of ownership. This company cars form a significant market share in C segment (near-luxury in US parlance) cars there. But in USA the sales are driven by sticker price at the dealer, not TOC. This would be another retardant in USA.
Third Big Oil has out size influence in US government. They fight harder to create road blocks.
American auto dealerships get 50% of their profits from servicing, oil change, tune ups etc. All those multi-million credit lines, borrowed money, ordered inventory, inventory risk all them produce just 50% of their profits. Simple investment in the garage and routine repairs rake in profits. EVs have much lower maintenance bills. These dealerships are very well organized, and they have outsize influence in the State and Local governments. Even the Big Auto is not able to reign their abusive practices in, even when they try. They come up with innovative road blocks by unreasonable road tax or registration requirements for EVs or object to charging stations, fight with local zoning regulations etc.
Given all this we can not expect USA to electrify as rapidly as Norway. But, it is inevitable. USA will switch to EVs too, albeit at a slower pace.
Re: (Score:2)
It's certainly slower here. I've seen one electric car ever, and that owner moved away.
There is rumored to be a fast charger 65 miles away, It'll be awhile before EVs get popular here.
Norway reached those numbers by incentives (Score:5, Interesting)
Norway didn't reach that 80% due to any "tipping point": they subsidized and incentivized the hell towards EVs to achieve a specific political goal.
These are the incentives for EVs that were or still are available in Norway [elbil.no]:
Want to reach similar numbers? Provide similar incentives.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
That's because there isn't an endless supply of Lithium to build the necessary batteries.
Yes there is. Lithium is not particularly rare.
Its not about will,
It's about the fact that there is a temporary lithium shortage mostly due to refinery capacity, not lack of source. It takes time to build new refineries in response to a change in demand.
its about it being impossible to build that many EVs without mining an asteroid.
Huh? asteroids are not a good place to look for lithium. The biggest lithium deposits are evaporites; you don't have water on asteroids that would have produced those.
Re: (Score:2)
Lithium is not particularly rare.
Lithium easy and economically-viable to extract isn't "rare", but is not in endless supply either. Lithium is not even a rare earth, not sure why you talk about rare.
Yes, you can extract some from seawater, but then the price of Lithium would be even higher than what it is today. And we already complain that EVs are expensive (and they are, compared to ICE). What good is saying "we can extract tons of Lithium from seawater" if nobody can afford the batteries built from it?
It's about the fact that there is a temporary lithium shortage mostly due to refinery capacity, not lack of source.
Just because you read it in a slash
Re: (Score:3)
Good luck with that. But thinking EVs can be a 1-to-1 replacement to ICE is just a pipe dream people have because they can't turn their head around the fact that people's way of life will have to change, either voluntarily, or imposed on them.
People who feel that a way of life cannot change kind of makes me think that nay (neigh) sayers saying the car will never replace the horse because you can't feed the car on hay. You have to drive somewhere to fill it with gas? What if you've already run out of gas ho
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Norway reached those numbers by incentives (Score:5, Insightful)
"...they subsidized and incentivized the hell towards EVs to achieve a specific political goal."
You do not know what a political goal is. Note that the link you provided describes a "national goal", not a political one.
The reason the US DOESN'T have subsidies like these is because of politicalization.
Re: (Score:2)
"...they subsidized and incentivized the hell towards EVs to achieve a specific political goal."
You do not know what a political goal is. Note that the link you provided describes a "national goal", not a political one.
The reason the US DOESN'T have subsidies like these is because of politicalization.
I'm not sure which distinction you are trying to make. The "national goal" Norway has set is political: it was defined and supported by Norway's government and a broad coalition of political parties.
The reason the US don't have similar incentives is because there is no such political goal from the government, nor from the major parties, so they don't enact corresponding measures. I assume in the US the expectation is for the free market to provide a solution by itself.
Re: (Score:2)
"The "national goal" Norway has set is political: it was defined and supported by Norway's government and a broad coalition of political parties."
Then it is NOT political. This is what you fail to understand. Political goals are goals to achieve political ends. The broader the political coalition, the less political it is. Does this really need to be explained?
"The reason the US don't have similar incentives is because there is no such political goal from the government..."
There you go misusing the term
Re: (Score:2)
Then it is NOT political. This is what you fail to understand. Political goals are goals to achieve political ends. The broader the political coalition, the less political it is. Does this really need to be explained?
I still fail to understand the distinction you are trying to make: to me a "political goal" is any goal which is been presented or put forward as part of a political agenda by a government, party or coalition for them to realize. To me the "national goal" of achieving zero emissions for vehicles is a "political goal".
The government of Norway seems to use the term in a similar fashion. As example, take this White Paper from Norway's government [regjeringen.no]:
The Norwegian Environment Agency has estimated that action to achieve political goals and ambitions can result in emission reductions of the order of 16 million tonnes over the period 2021–2030.
As a political goal, Norwegian society will prepare for and adapt to climate change.
Or this one [regjeringen.no]:
The Government’s political target is for Norway to reduce its non-ETS emissions by 45 % by 2030.
The 45 % target is a political goal, and is not legally binding.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wow it's almost like you could solve problems if you actually wanted to.
Also yeah if you look at the trend, there doesn't seem to be any specific tipping point: https://i.imgur.com/1y4yif4.pn... [imgur.com]
S-curve (Score:4, Insightful)
New tech (actually: "decidedly better tech") has an S-curve [researchgate.net] adoption model.
This was seen repeatedly in smaller sections of the economy, such as hard drive innovations of the past 50 years or so. Hard drives had a series of innovations that drove capacity to new heights, and the uptake was always an S-curve.
Additionally, there's a famous pair of photos [alearningaday.blog] from 5th avenue in NYC at the start of the last century: in 1900 the street was full of horses/carriages and one auto, while in 1913 the street was full of automobiles and one horsedrawn carriage.
The point is that new tech builds on itself, which leads to a bell curve of adoption. The beginning tail of the bell curve looks like an "S-curve" where new tech is adopted at an exponential rate, then once everyone has the new tech the curve levels off and falls to a constant "replacement level".
This is why lots of people think Tesla will be the main player in the EV race: they're currently making about 2 million vehicles a year and doubling output every 2 years. There are about 1.3 billion ICE vehicles in the world, and with an S-curve adoption there's not that many doublings before the world is saturated. (About 9 doublings from the current point, which would be 18 years from now.)
Of course Tesla won't continue doubling to that point, but it's reasonable to expect that they will continue until they reach an output of 10 or 20 million vehicles a year.
Compare this to Ford, who recently doubled EV F150 production to 150,000 units/year [theverge.com]. All the western EV manufacturers outside of Tesla - all of them combined - have less production than Tesla.
So we have essentially two companies experiencing an exponential curve with one company ahead of the other. Regardless of how well the Ford Lightning does, the difference between 2 exponential curves is still exponential.
(Making no claim as to how good the Tesla or Ford vehicles are - I hear the Lightning is very nice, but the cybertruck has about 750,000 reservations and production will begin this year.)
Two conclusions:
1) The EV adoption will be completed in under 20 years. Climate change activists should be happy about that.
2) Unless a miracle happens, Tesla will be the EV winner going forward.
Re: (Score:2)
Lithium in the ocean (Score:2)
None of those technologies required more of a material than exists in the Earth's crust. That might change things a bit.
You know there's Lithium in the ocean, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Also, there's no ocean in the Earth's crust. Checkmate, libs!
Within the last few weeks there was this news: https://www.chemistryworld.com... [chemistryworld.com]
We really have no idea, it's a braindead argument. We were supposed to reach peak oil in the 20's, then in the 60's, then in the 80's and on and on. Now we realize that we can't even afford to extract all the oil. Arguing that we can't make BEVs because we can't have enough Lithium is moronic, conspicuously so.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it's not clear that we'll hit peak oil due to demand, not due to supply. Depending on who you ask, that's either now or in a few years.
As they say, we didn't leave the Stone Age because we ran out of stones.
Re: (Score:2)
Short distance vehicles do not need Lithium at all, so all that "good for CO2 emissions" coming from "compliance cars" can be accomplished without Lithium. Also, you have no idea how much of a particular "material" exists in the Earth's crust, only what has been discovered, and battery research is ongoing.
By all means, though, run for President of future EV development on the platform of Lithium usage in consumer cars is stupid. There's got to be a vote or two out there for you.
Re: (Score:2)
"Of course Tesla won't continue doubling to that point, but it's reasonable to expect that they will continue until they reach an output of 10 or 20 million vehicles a year."
Why? Is that how free market capitalism works? A company is entitled to that growth regardless of its competitiveness? It's reasonable to reach such a conclusion without any consideration of a company's performance?
"Compare this to Ford, who recently doubled EV F150 production to 150,000 units/year [theverge.com]. All the western EV
EVs are only worth it if... (Score:2, Insightful)
Just recently, the Secretary of Energy tried to drive an EV cross country and had significant problems:
https://www.npr.org/2023/09/10/1187224861/electric-vehicles-evs-cars-chargers-charging-energy-secretary-jennifer-granholm
Re: (Score:2)
EVs are only worth it if: 1) You have a convenient way to recharge it at home, and 2) never take long cross-country trips.
I take my Tesla on cross-country trips routinely. Not a problem.
If you were a speed fanatic and wanted to drive NY to LA and not even stop for pee breaks, maybe, but you know? Most people don't mind stopping for meals and to stretch your legs. They even like an occasional break.
Re: (Score:2)
Ideal way to travel, get into the super charger, plug the car in. Get something to eat. Come back to the car, stetch out the seat back and take a power nap for 15 minutes. Go back to freshen up, grab a coffee and return to the car, fully charged for another 300 miles. Hit the road refreshed.
You will arrive after a 500 to 600 mile drive refreshed with some energy left to stay up for a while. What is the big point in driving at break neck speed arrive so bush
Re: (Score:2)
EVs will change the driver behavior completely. Ideal way to travel, get into the super charger, plug the car in. Get something to eat. Come back to the car, stetch out the seat back and take a power nap for 15 minutes.
You don't even need that power nap. The EV is always finished charging well before I've finished eating.
Maybe not if you're at an old level-1 charger, but at superchargers, always.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like an opportunity.
Linked article is NOT from the WP (Score:2)
It's from MSN. Go to WP to read it directly
Re:Linked article is NOT from the WP (Score:5, Informative)
Across the pond in the UK... (Score:2)
... I believe that between 3 and 4 percent of road vehicles are now EV's - not sure if that includes any breakdown of stats for hybrids.
My wife has a company car, she opted for a Hybrid, simply because our infrastructure for EV's over here is still very poor.
Those that have made the "transition" are in a position to install a charger in their home.
Trying to use an EV over here without your own home based charging point is very difficult.
It gets more complex still when you consider early EV models and the le
Re: (Score:2)
But apparently your wife's company has implemented a cost strategy that does not allow the plug-in hybrid to be used effectively.
Re: (Score:2)
"What is holding back a more rapid transition is the infrastructure..."
"My wife has a company car, she opted for a Hybrid..."
You are using your wife's experience with a company car as evidence of what determines EV adoption? LOL
"Company cars" are driven by tax and compensation laws, you yourself acknowledge "her company hasn't got to grips with payment methods". It is typical that laws allow hybrid company cars to reimburse for fuel but not electric.
Many hybrid company cars never plug in, even if they can
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, the UK probably has a higher percentage of the population that can't easily charge at home. Employers that provide vehicles should provide free charging for them at work. Leaving them plugged in for eight hours a day should be more than enough. Making that happen would likely involve a policy change in how the government allows for accounting for company vehicles.
As to charging time, for a fast charger, the time is typically similar across vehicles to fill to 80%. Using them for plug-in hybrids or
Winter? (Score:2)
Since people here presumably have experience with these things...
My wife and I will be in the market for a new car a few years down the road, and we've been thinking tentatively that it will be electric. One of my bigger concerns is that we live in Vermont. One of the things about internal combustion engines is the amount of waste heat, and that means that heating the interior in winter is pretty simple. Waste the heat inside instead of outside. With an electric there is less waste heat, and that means
Re: (Score:2)
A guy I know in Calgary has a Tesla. He's happy with it. There's still plenty of range for his needs, even with the heater going full blast. But make no mistake, range IS affected by using heat or air conditioning.
Pseudo science (Score:2)
Tipping points occur in easily adopted behaviors like recycling and jaywalking. They do not occur in purchases of $50,000+ vehicles. The vast majority of EV sales are to affluent homeowners with short commutes. There is little interest from those without easy access to home and work site chargers.
Raining on your parade... (Score:3)
Unlikely to get that high in the US for a bit (Score:3)
Until there's better charging infrastructure (level 2 a
(or even level 1) for street parking/apartment garages) there won't be more than 30-50% EV sales.
So many people can't practically own an EV and it's not range issues, it's lack of slow charging.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you resent the guy for being a dickhead engineer at Apple or for buying an American car to get American subsidies while a BZ4X is Japanese?
Re: (Score:2)
and the market for EV trucks is pretty small
Ford's problem is not so much demand, but supply which they have been making progress on. Still, for such a pricey vehichle their expected output of a 150k per year is pretty good. Also anecdotally but I have seen a noticeable uptick in the number of Rivian trucks on the roads. Demand will grow but right now if you want an electric truck you have, what, those two options? Not exactly a fair number to base a nationwide trend off of.
Also, love it or hate it but Tesla Cybertruck Surpassed 1.9 Million Pre-Or [autoevolution.com]
Re: (Score:3)
It's basically the battery where most of the cost is, making cars like giant cellphones is probably not the best of the ideas.
But i bet if there were modular, standardized modules you can just slide in and out of the cars, it would both completely eliminate the charging time problem and make recycling etc a lot easier as well, as it would be one specific machine for one specific pack.
But nope, gotta make apple cars.
Re: (Score:2)
30 minute fast charge ...
You can compromise a little too much. Water cooled batteries and reversible heat pump or GTFO.
Re: (Score:2)
Nevertheless, roadside air pollution -- the kind that actually is toxic, unlike CO_2 -- is vastly decreased, letting people like me and maybe you breathe easier. Doesn't mean I'd buy one -- doesn't meet my needs -- but there are some positive aspects even if it has no effect on CO_2, much less global warming.
Re: (Score:2)
Coal makes 19% of electricity in the US. So when you're driving your Tesla, you're burning 60% petroleum, 40% natural gas, and 19% coal.
Huh? Almost no electrical power in the US is produced from petroleum (coal and natural gas percentages are about right). You missed nuclear (18.2% of US electricity production); hydro (6.2%); wind (10.2%); and solar (3.4%) (according to EIA. [eia.gov])
Also, it turns out that it is vastly more efficient to produce power from large combined-cycle turbines than in a small gasoline engine-- there's an economy of scale in generator efficiency. So, even if an EV is ultimately fossil-fuel powered, it uses a lot less than a
Rare Earths [Re:Going "green" via electric...] (Score:2)
... How much pollution does it take to mine the rare earth minerals used in batteries or semiconductors.
I wish I could stop the increasingly-common use of the phrase "rare earths" to refer to elements which are not rare earth elements. Rare Earth elements are scandium, yttrium, and the lanthanides. Lithium, nickel, cobalt-- none of these are rare earth elements. As for semiconductors, no, silicon, gallium arsenide, gallium nitride, even silicon carbide... none of these are rare earth elements.
Re: (Score:2)
On shore wind is cheaper than natural gas, solar is getting there. There is very good chance natural gas also will be eliminated someday.
But without EV you are forever committed to burning fossil fuels.
Re: (Score:2)
Truly a FOX news correction.
The US has about 20% renewable, 20% nuclear, and 60% fossil fuels. Petroleum is 1%.
"So when you're driving your Tesla" 40% of your energy, on average, doesn't come from "burning" at all. And even that is likely false because we can't assume Tesla usage is the same as the US average.
"A magic wand isn't waved and a Tesla or other green product suddenly appears."
And even if it were, we'd still have to make the magic wand. But something has to be made sooner or later. Your lifest
Re: (Score:2)
Let the "FREE MARKET" take its route
As has been pointed out many many many times, the "FREE MARKET" does not take externalities into account.
That means, if doing something has negative effects that somebody else pays, the free market will not adapt to minimize that cost.
...And one of the main reason the global-techno-fascists want people on EVs, is all about control. You used too much carbon this month when you planted a potato, you're not allowed to charge your car...
What? This is bizarre conspiracy thinking. If you want global control, pay attention to the oil companies that are already in control of how you power your car.
Re:Not for the north (Score:4, Insightful)
If you live in a cold area, like I do, electric cars are simply not viable.
If you live in an area that is cold and largely rural, like I do, that makes BEVs even less viable. There's long drives to get places because of the low population density. It's difficult to break that catch-22, chicken-egg, or whichever dilemma that holds preventing public EV chargers from opening up and having enough business to stay profitable. Cold weather will reduce range, snow on roads will reduce range, high winds on the open plains reduce range.
I see a huge opportunity for the PHEV since even in rural America people will often have relatively short daily commutes. But they also will routinely have to drive long distances for shopping, dental care, eyeglasses, and other fairly mundane things with some regularity. Also, power outages are more common. It's not like they happen all the time but losing power for a few hours once a year or so will stick out in one's mind when faced with the decision to buy a BEV or not. Remember that losing power for just 24 hours in one year is still 99.7% up time. Losing power for one night in one year is 99.9% up time. That's not huge but if a power outage lands on the night before a difficult to schedule appointment that will burn into the memory of a BEV letting someone down for the rest of their life, and they will mention this to people they know that are considering a BEV.
I know people with a BEV. Everyone of them also have a 4WD truck because of memories of being stuck at home because of heavy snow and having to call someone with 4WD to come get them so they could buy food, get to work, or whatever. Diesel vehicles have a bad reputation around here for leaving people out in the cold, I don't expect BEVs to be any more popular.