When Will Internal Combustion Engine Cars Account For Less Than 5% Of New Car Sales In The US? (1 Viewer)

[MTskibum]

Why jump in then when the latest breakthrough on fast charging won’t be out until the next generation. EVs are still very young, and just looking at what was available 5-10 years ago to now is a huge difference

I mean this could be said about everything we buy though? Obviously this is a larger purchase than something menial, but we always make judgment calls on whether the next year's X will be better and worth it to wait. You gotta make the plunge at some point otherwise you are still driving a 1976 Pinto

1977 Ford Pinto gas mileage - 26 mpg average. My 2012 4 cylinder rav4 - I average 24 mpg. Like I said, they've kinda done what they can with an ICE powered car. There isn’t some technological breakthrough right around the corner. This also isn’t quite like a $500 cell phone, it’s a $40+k automobile.

As I said, I’d love to own one and it would be fine for much of my driving requirements, but not all. And that may be the case for a whole lot of people. To the point where a family may need one of each, as mine likely will.

The Pinto had 90 HP and polluted like crazy, no catalytic converter, etc where as the Rav 4 has 180HP and has pollution controls.
The engine technology between the two is vastly different even though the MPG is similar.

 

[matttyl]

Why jump in then when the latest breakthrough on fast charging won’t be out until the next generation. EVs are still very young, and just looking at what was available 5-10 years ago to now is a huge difference

I mean this could be said about everything we buy though? Obviously this is a larger purchase than something menial, but we always make judgment calls on whether the next year's X will be better and worth it to wait. You gotta make the plunge at some point otherwise you are still driving a 1976 Pinto

1977 Ford Pinto gas mileage - 26 mpg average. My 2012 4 cylinder rav4 - I average 24 mpg. Like I said, they've kinda done what they can with an ICE powered car. There isn’t some technological breakthrough right around the corner. This also isn’t quite like a $500 cell phone, it’s a $40+k automobile.

As I said, I’d love to own one and it would be fine for much of my driving requirements, but not all. And that may be the case for a whole lot of people. To the point where a family may need one of each, as mine likely will.

The Pinto had 90 HP and polluted like crazy, no catalytic converter, etc where as the Rav 4 has 180HP and has pollution controls.
The engine technology between the two is vastly different even though the MPG is similar.

I mean I realize those differences, but we’re also talking about nearly 40 years between them. The EV market has evolved at least that much in the last 5-10.

 

[JAA]

Solar is kinda expensive, a bit unpredictable, and not available in many many locations. Your plan is OK from that front but its not really a full time solution.

Wind is a bad example as wind farms are the best bet. Those don't go up in neighborhoods. Quite the opposite, NIMBYs hate wind. This means you need to find long out places to farm and then transmission and storage of excess.

But even if it is wind you can have cars soak up that excess power when it is windy and then redistribute that power when the wind stops blowing. This can happen even if the wind farm is ~400 miles away from the consumers. The power source does not need to be next to the storage. You still suffer the same amount of transmission loss whether you are storing next to the power generation or next to the consumers.

Where is this?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Thanks for this, I fully agree with what you’re saying, but it’s also kinda making my point.

As I mentioned above I have a Chevy Tahoe as one of my family’s 2 vehicles because we have a travel trailer (camper) that we take out a few times a year for family trips. I choose that car not for the 95% of driving I do within 30 miles of my house, but for the 5% of the time I’m towing.

We do this kinda thing for more than just cars, too. I’ve never lost power at my house for more than a few hours in the nearly 10 years I’ve been there - still have a gas powered generator. We’ve never had an issue with our neighborhood’s shared well water - still have a few gallons of bottled drinking water in garage in case. We have a guest bedroom in our house that gets used once a year. A car is something most people don’t have a backup of - so they one they have needs to do everything they need it to, not 90-95% of it.

For sake of argument you buy that EV. in real world application you find that you really do use it 90 to 95% of the time. You only use the Tahoe for these trips, to use it enough to keep the parts lubricated, and maybe a few times a month for short trips while the other vehicle is used elsewhere. When do you replace it with a new ICE Tahoe (or equivalent)?

This what I mean by the question is about new car sales, rather than what is on the road. People will still have access to vehicles to cover the exceptions, but will be buying new for the 90-95% once the up front premiums flip, That doesn't seem more than a generation out.

ETA: That is assuming that owning a car as opposed to subscribing to a car is still a thing in a generation. I think will be, but ....

 

[Dragons]

Thanks for this, I fully agree with what you’re saying, but it’s also kinda making my point.

As I mentioned above I have a Chevy Tahoe as one of my family’s 2 vehicles because we have a travel trailer (camper) that we take out a few times a year for family trips. I choose that car not for the 95% of driving I do within 30 miles of my house, but for the 5% of the time I’m towing.

We do this kinda thing for more than just cars, too. I’ve never lost power at my house for more than a few hours in the nearly 10 years I’ve been there - still have a gas powered generator. We’ve never had an issue with our neighborhood’s shared well water - still have a few gallons of bottled drinking water in garage in case. We have a guest bedroom in our house that gets used once a year. A car is something most people don’t have a backup of - so they one they have needs to do everything they need it to, not 90-95% of it.

For sake of argument you buy that EV. in real world application you find that you really do use it 90 to 95% of the time. You only use the Tahoe for these trips, to use it enough to keep the parts lubricated, and maybe a few times a month for short trips while the other vehicle is used elsewhere. When do you replace it with a new ICE Tahoe (or equivalent)?

This what I mean by the question is about new car sales, rather than what is on the road. People will still have access to vehicles to cover the exceptions, but will be buying new for the 90-95% once the up front premiums flip, That doesn't seem more than a generation out.

ETA: That is assuming that owning a car as opposed to subscribing to a car is still a thing in a generation. I think will be, but ....

Or even less of an extreme change in mindset of car ownership, just renting a larger vehicle twice a year when needed.

 

[JAA]

It seems far away, like 50+ years. EV vehicles are still too expensive, and the oil industry is gonna fight it tooth and nail.

I hope I'm wrong. TBH, I'd rather autonomous vehicles supplant private car ownership, though that doesn't seem imminent either.

I would actually say the opposite, and that the oil industry has pretty much resigned itself to losing a ton of market share.

This is a good video on it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQbmpecxS2w

Cliffs notes is basically that oil companies have completed stopped building new pipelines and new rigs for the future in order to maximize profits for the present, as they're worried demand won't last long enough for those kinds of long-term projects to pay off anymore.

Additionally in the past when new technologies came out that threatened them they would typically increase supply to drive down oil prices (why do we need hybrids/EVs if gas is cheap anyway?) but now even with EVs they've done the complete opposite and restricted supply to further drive up the price of oil (to maximize near-term profits) at the expense of people getting more and more annoyed with having to buy gas.

I hope you’re right, as it would be great to see oil’s influence on world politics dry up.

Not happening until Nuclear is more prevalent or significant storage capabilities rise.

Renewables are 20-25% of our total Electrical Generation share. Once we have all these electric cars, the demand will get even higher.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Or even less of an extreme change in mindset of car ownership, just renting a larger vehicle twice a year when needed.

I was considering those that already found it worth it to invest in a camper or boat that mostly sat unused in these hypotheticals would seem more likely to keep around a vehicle to tow it, but I otherwise agree.

 

[Terminalxylem]

Bummer. Hopefully they’ll replace it with something other than an EV truck or SUV. Entry level EV cars are few and far between.

They will be cheaper than entry level ICEs soon enough...much much simpler mechanically.

The focus now is on making batteries cheaper which is going to happen.

I hope you‘re right, though I don’t think mechanical complexity drives the price.

From an overall cost perspective including maintenance, warranty, insurance etc. The simplicity of the EV is going to be a huge money saver over the life of the car.

I understand EVs saving money from less moving parts breaking down, no oil changes and fuel costs. But are warranties and insurance cheaper?

ETA Have you looked at Tesla reliability ratings lately?

Warranty would have to cost the company less to offer as it’s covering fewer things. It doesn’t have to cover, say, a water pump, a radiator, a timing chain, a clutch. With fewer moving parts that could break down, the cost to insure an EV from breaking down would be less than the cost to insure an ICE from breaking down.

The idea on insurance is that Teslas (specifically) have fewer accidents due to all the safety equipment built in. Collision detection and cameras all over and such. I know they looked into getting into the insurance game themselves, but I haven’t looked into that lately. You can watch videos of them trying to roll/flip a Tesla 3 or Y and it’s virtually impossible to due to the very low center of gravity. With all that, at least in theory, it would cost less to insure against accidents and very costly medical claims.

I understand the theory, but what is reality? My friend with a 3 told me it was expensive to insure, though I don’t know what he was comparing it to. And TMK, Tesla’s aren’t uniformly considered the best vehicles in crash testing. Teslas also aren’t considered the most reliable cars, at least according to consumer reports and JD Power.

I hate to conflate the two, but at this point Tesla is EV, in this country at least.

ETA And while the missing parts are emphasized, what about the maintenance/warranty for the big extra part which is known to degrade with time, and expensive to replace? Batteries have been problematic for several companies, due to early failure and/or malfunction/fire (Yes, I know they’ve improved, and will continue to do so).

 

[Dragons]

Bummer. Hopefully they’ll replace it with something other than an EV truck or SUV. Entry level EV cars are few and far between.

They will be cheaper than entry level ICEs soon enough...much much simpler mechanically.

The focus now is on making batteries cheaper which is going to happen.

I hope you‘re right, though I don’t think mechanical complexity drives the price.

From an overall cost perspective including maintenance, warranty, insurance etc. The simplicity of the EV is going to be a huge money saver over the life of the car.

I understand EVs saving money from less moving parts breaking down, no oil changes and fuel costs. But are warranties and insurance cheaper?

ETA Have you looked at Tesla reliability ratings lately?

Warranty would have to cost the company less to offer as it’s covering fewer things. It doesn’t have to cover, say, a water pump, a radiator, a timing chain, a clutch. With fewer moving parts that could break down, the cost to insure an EV from breaking down would be less than the cost to insure an ICE from breaking down.

The idea on insurance is that Teslas (specifically) have fewer accidents due to all the safety equipment built in. Collision detection and cameras all over and such. I know they looked into getting into the insurance game themselves, but I haven’t looked into that lately. You can watch videos of them trying to roll/flip a Tesla 3 or Y and it’s virtually impossible to due to the very low center of gravity. With all that, at least in theory, it would cost less to insure against accidents and very costly medical claims.

I understand the theory, but what is reality? My friend with a 3 told me it was expensive to insure, though I don’t know what he was comparing it to. And TMK, Tesla’s aren’t uniformly considered the best vehicles in crash testing. Teslas also aren’t considered the most reliable cars, at least according to consumer reports and JD Power.

I hate to conflate the two, but at this point Tesla is EV, in this country at least.

The insurance rates seem to vary carrier by carrier. Tesla insurance is available in a few states, and I understand they offer considerably lower rates for good drivers (and have the monitoring technology already in every car).

Tesla's get extremely high marks in crash testing. Anecdotally, you probably even heard of the family that survived driving off a cliff in California.

 

[matttyl]

Bummer. Hopefully they’ll replace it with something other than an EV truck or SUV. Entry level EV cars are few and far between.

They will be cheaper than entry level ICEs soon enough...much much simpler mechanically.

The focus now is on making batteries cheaper which is going to happen.

I hope you‘re right, though I don’t think mechanical complexity drives the price.

From an overall cost perspective including maintenance, warranty, insurance etc. The simplicity of the EV is going to be a huge money saver over the life of the car.

I understand EVs saving money from less moving parts breaking down, no oil changes and fuel costs. But are warranties and insurance cheaper?

ETA Have you looked at Tesla reliability ratings lately?

Warranty would have to cost the company less to offer as it’s covering fewer things. It doesn’t have to cover, say, a water pump, a radiator, a timing chain, a clutch. With fewer moving parts that could break down, the cost to insure an EV from breaking down would be less than the cost to insure an ICE from breaking down.

The idea on insurance is that Teslas (specifically) have fewer accidents due to all the safety equipment built in. Collision detection and cameras all over and such. I know they looked into getting into the insurance game themselves, but I haven’t looked into that lately. You can watch videos of them trying to roll/flip a Tesla 3 or Y and it’s virtually impossible to due to the very low center of gravity. With all that, at least in theory, it would cost less to insure against accidents and very costly medical claims.

I understand the theory, but what is reality? My friend with a 3 told me it was expensive to insure, though I don’t know what he was comparing it to. And TMK, Tesla’s aren’t uniformly considered the best vehicles in crash testing. Teslas also aren’t considered the most reliable cars, at least according to consumer reports and JD Power.

I hate to conflate the two, but at this point Tesla is EV, in this country at least.

I think teslas have been expensive to insure, and may still be - and a large reason why is that insurance companies didn’t really know how to price them. They didn’t have any real world claims history for them, so they priced policies pretty conservatively.

Now actual data is starting to come in. Now while those numbers are provided by Tesla themselves - in Q4 ‘22, the US average was about half a million miles driven per accident. Teslas average without autopilot, but with the other safety features about about 1.5M miles. With autopilot was close to 5M miles. Prior quarters show similar numbers. So at least in theory they should cost less to insure.

 

[matttyl]

Re Tesla auto insurance….

Valuepenguin.com/Tesla-car-insurance

 

[TripItUp]

You'll see insurance rates for EV eventually be far less than ICE for reasons previously stated.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

It's one thing to bring EVs to market. It's another thing entirely to shove ICE vehicles out of the market. To get ICEs down to <5% of all sales, you need EVs that can comfortably cover midwestern distances, and that seems to be a long away at this point.

That is at least 30 years away if not more.

Unless the eV is your second vehicle that you take short day to day trips The reliability is just not there right now. I had a demo GM EV for a week in the winter. Range was 325-340 miles. I was traveling to Northern MI distance was 250 miles and was getting really close to dying out around the 225-230 mark. So close that I stopped when I had a chance to recharge. Almost 100 miles less than it should have traveled. Did not want to be stuck in the middle of nowhere.

I would not buy an EV right now unless it was a hybrid gas fuel backup vehicle.

In 2010, the average miles an EV could travel was 79 miles, with a maximum distance of 94 miles.

Today the average is 217 with a maximum of 520 miles.

Seems preposterous that we have tripled average in just 13 years, yet we think we need another 30 years to be able to get to a comfortable midwestern mileage (whatever exactly that is).

Diminishing marginal returns. It isn't especially surprising that the first doubling of range is pretty straightforward, the next doubling is more difficult, and the next doubling is extremely difficult.

"Midwestern mileage" is just shorthand for the observation that people who live in the non-urban interior part of the country tend to drive more that people on the coasts and/or in cities. You can't get to 95% market share by just selling to people who live in cities and just need a vehicle to get to Whole Foods and back. You have to be able to sell to the guy who wants to take his boat to the lake. Your state of Minnesota has about 14,500 boats for every 100,000 people, so it's not some rare, exotic thing. And that's just boats, which again I'm just using as a concrete example. You can toss in snowmobiles, jet-skis, campers, etc. Those are probably going to be some of the last adopters of EVs, and it doesn't strike me as preposterous that it might take a while to get batteries to the point that they meet the needs of that market segment.

I'm don't follow it super closely, but isn't the next "doubling" moving along pretty quickly? Solid-state battery technology seems to be making strides much more quickly than originally anticipated. A year or two ago they were talking about it being ready in a decade at the fastest, now it sounds like it may be ready much sooner. Some roadblocks for sure, but seemingly solvable.

 

[Terminalxylem]

Thanks for this, I fully agree with what you’re saying, but it’s also kinda making my point.

As I mentioned above I have a Chevy Tahoe as one of my family’s 2 vehicles because we have a travel trailer (camper) that we take out a few times a year for family trips. I choose that car not for the 95% of driving I do within 30 miles of my house, but for the 5% of the time I’m towing.

We do this kinda thing for more than just cars, too. I’ve never lost power at my house for more than a few hours in the nearly 10 years I’ve been there - still have a gas powered generator. We’ve never had an issue with our neighborhood’s shared well water - still have a few gallons of bottled drinking water in garage in case. We have a guest bedroom in our house that gets used once a year. A car is something most people don’t have a backup of - so they one they have needs to do everything they need it to, not 90-95% of it.

For sake of argument you buy that EV. in real world application you find that you really do use it 90 to 95% of the time. You only use the Tahoe for these trips, to use it enough to keep the parts lubricated, and maybe a few times a month for short trips while the other vehicle is used elsewhere. When do you replace it with a new ICE Tahoe (or equivalent)?

This what I mean by the question is about new car sales, rather than what is on the road. People will still have access to vehicles to cover the exceptions, but will be buying new for the 90-95% once the up front premiums flip, That doesn't seem more than a generation out.

ETA: That is assuming that owning a car as opposed to subscribing to a car is still a thing in a generation. I think will be, but ....

Yep. This is why I mentioned autonomous vehicles pages ago. I can easily imagine car ownership becoming obsolete well before EVs reach 95% market share.

 

[Terminalxylem]

It seems far away, like 50+ years. EV vehicles are still too expensive, and the oil industry is gonna fight it tooth and nail.

I hope I'm wrong. TBH, I'd rather autonomous vehicles supplant private car ownership, though that doesn't seem imminent either.

I would actually say the opposite, and that the oil industry has pretty much resigned itself to losing a ton of market share.

This is a good video on it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQbmpecxS2w

Cliffs notes is basically that oil companies have completed stopped building new pipelines and new rigs for the future in order to maximize profits for the present, as they're worried demand won't last long enough for those kinds of long-term projects to pay off anymore.

Additionally in the past when new technologies came out that threatened them they would typically increase supply to drive down oil prices (why do we need hybrids/EVs if gas is cheap anyway?) but now even with EVs they've done the complete opposite and restricted supply to further drive up the price of oil (to maximize near-term profits) at the expense of people getting more and more annoyed with having to buy gas.

I hope you’re right, as it would be great to see oil’s influence on world politics dry up.

Not happening until Nuclear is more prevalent or significant storage capabilities rise.

Renewables are 20-25% of our total Electrical Generation share. Once we have all these electric cars, the demand will get even higher.

I think home batteries and “smart grids” will solve storage issues soon. Apparently there are great incentives to purchase batteries right now, such that they pay for themselves quickly.

 

[Terminalxylem]

Bummer. Hopefully they’ll replace it with something other than an EV truck or SUV. Entry level EV cars are few and far between.

They will be cheaper than entry level ICEs soon enough...much much simpler mechanically.

The focus now is on making batteries cheaper which is going to happen.

I hope you‘re right, though I don’t think mechanical complexity drives the price.

From an overall cost perspective including maintenance, warranty, insurance etc. The simplicity of the EV is going to be a huge money saver over the life of the car.

I understand EVs saving money from less moving parts breaking down, no oil changes and fuel costs. But are warranties and insurance cheaper?

ETA Have you looked at Tesla reliability ratings lately?

Warranty would have to cost the company less to offer as it’s covering fewer things. It doesn’t have to cover, say, a water pump, a radiator, a timing chain, a clutch. With fewer moving parts that could break down, the cost to insure an EV from breaking down would be less than the cost to insure an ICE from breaking down.

The idea on insurance is that Teslas (specifically) have fewer accidents due to all the safety equipment built in. Collision detection and cameras all over and such. I know they looked into getting into the insurance game themselves, but I haven’t looked into that lately. You can watch videos of them trying to roll/flip a Tesla 3 or Y and it’s virtually impossible to due to the very low center of gravity. With all that, at least in theory, it would cost less to insure against accidents and very costly medical claims.

I understand the theory, but what is reality? My friend with a 3 told me it was expensive to insure, though I don’t know what he was comparing it to. And TMK, Tesla’s aren’t uniformly considered the best vehicles in crash testing. Teslas also aren’t considered the most reliable cars, at least according to consumer reports and JD Power.

I hate to conflate the two, but at this point Tesla is EV, in this country at least.

The insurance rates seem to vary carrier by carrier. Tesla insurance is available in a few states, and I understand they offer considerably lower rates for good drivers (and have the monitoring technology already in every car).

Tesla's get extremely high marks in crash testing. Anecdotally, you probably even heard of the family that survived driving off a cliff in California.

Despite publicity about extreme crash performance, Teslas are not uniformly best in safety ratings.

Their reliability also isn’t significantly better than ICE cars; they’re near the bottom of the most recent Consumer Reports.

 

[Terminalxylem]

For comparison, the first smartphone was available to consumers in 1994. Twenty+ years later, we’re at ~87% market share.

As someone who didn‘t get smart until a couple years ago, I can understand the hold outs. Getting 95% of any market is really difficult.

EVs are around 7% of new vehicle sales today. With many more logistic barriers than smartphones, I see no reason to expect better results selling them to the masses. So the first two poll choices seem wildly optimistic. If anything, this thread has made me more convinced beyond 2075 is the correct answer.

 

[Dragons]

@Terminalxylem

Despite publicity about extreme crash performance, Teslas are not uniformly best in safety ratings.
Their reliability also isn’t significantly better than ICE cars, at least according to groups like Consumer Reports.


Starting fresh, nesting is wrecking havoc with my PC.

I'm not certain where you're getting your data on safety ratings, but all Tesla models routinely get 5* for NHTSA Overall, Frontal, Side and Rollover ratings.

Ratings | NHTSA

NHTSA's 5-Star Safety Ratings help you make smart decisions about safety when buying a car. Compare vehicles, and search car seat and tire ratings.

www.nhtsa.gov

A quick google search indicates awards and other high ratings on other rating systems (Euro, Canada, etc). Where are you getting your info?

Tesla Model Y wins 2023 safety award with "near-perfect safety rating"

Tesla's all-electric SUV has won leading Car of the Year Safety Award after record posting highest ever score.

thedriven.io

2022 Tesla Model S Receives 5-Star Euro NCAP Rating

The 2022 Tesla Model S has received a 5-star safety rating from Euro NCAP, just like the original version in 2014.

insideevs.com

Tesla's Model 3 wins insurance industry's top safety rating

Tesla Model 3 continues winning awards for safety, this time earning the top safety rating from the Insurance Institute of Highway Safety (IIHS).

driveteslacanada.ca

I don't want to get into a discussion on reliability and reliability ratings agencies.

 

[Gally]

For comparison, the first smartphone was available to consumers in 1994. Twenty+ years later, we’re at ~87% market share.

and that is for something that doesn't challenge your perceived freedom (I guess other than tracking your every movement..hahah) like the perception of EV's leaving you dead miles from your destination with no charger in sight.

It's why I voted beyond 2075 because getting to 95% market share seems almost impossible for anything to me.

 

[Terminalxylem]

@Terminalxylem

Despite publicity about extreme crash performance, Teslas are not uniformly best in safety ratings.
Their reliability also isn’t significantly better than ICE cars, at least according to groups like Consumer Reports.


Starting fresh, nesting is wrecking havoc with my PC.

I'm not certain where you're getting your data on safety ratings, but all Tesla models routinely get 5* for NHTSA Overall, Frontal, Side and Rollover ratings.

Ratings | NHTSA

NHTSA's 5-Star Safety Ratings help you make smart decisions about safety when buying a car. Compare vehicles, and search car seat and tire ratings.

www.nhtsa.gov

A quick google search indicates awards and other high ratings on other rating systems (Euro, Canada, etc). Where are you getting your info?

Tesla Model Y wins 2023 safety award with "near-perfect safety rating"

Tesla's all-electric SUV has won leading Car of the Year Safety Award after record posting highest ever score.

thedriven.io

2022 Tesla Model S Receives 5-Star Euro NCAP Rating

The 2022 Tesla Model S has received a 5-star safety rating from Euro NCAP, just like the original version in 2014.

insideevs.com

Tesla's Model 3 wins insurance industry's top safety rating

Tesla Model 3 continues winning awards for safety, this time earning the top safety rating from the Insurance Institute of Highway Safety (IIHS).

driveteslacanada.ca

I don't want to get into a discussion on reliability and reliability ratings agencies.

I‘m not saying they aren’t safe - pretty much every modern vehicle is. There are plenty of other vehicles with 5-star safety ratings.

IHS and US News didn’t even mention Teslas among their top picks, for example.

ETA I missed one Model Y mention, but my point remains: Teslas aren’t appreciably safer than other vehicles.

 

[ghostguy123]

For the people who call the EVs green energy............how are they created, and how are they disposed of?

 

[Dragons]

For the people who call the EVs green energy............how are they created, and how are they disposed of?

Manufacturing has a larger emissions footprint than ICE vehicles, however they more than make up for it when they get on the road.

Are electric vehicles definitely better for the climate than gas-powered cars?

Yes: although electric cars' batteries make them more carbon-intensive to manufacture than gas cars, they more than make up for it by driving much cleaner under nearly any conditions.

climate.mit.edu

There will be a whole industry dedicated to recycling and re-using batteries.

ETA -
Further reducing the environmental impact of mining them for the first use.

 

[the moops]

For the people who call the EVs green energy............how are they created, and how are they disposed of?

There are hundreds of articles and studies that have been done on this topic. Yes, they rely on fossil fuels for the electricity, and yes, the disposal is an issue. But every study shows they are a greener alternative with the capability of soon being way greener with the advancement in renewables

 

[the moops]

and that is for something that doesn't challenge your perceived freedom (I guess other than tracking your every movement..hahah) like the perception of EV's leaving you dead miles from your destination with no charger in sight.

This is in only the case if we don't see a substantial increase in the availability in charging stations. That increase seems inevitable to me, and most certainly well before 2075

 

[Gally]

This is in only the case if we don't see a substantial increase in the availability in charging stations. That increase seems inevitable to me, and most certainly well before 2075

The perception will take longer to change than the reality.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

Things always take longer to change than we originally think. Just remember we were all supposed to have flying cars by now.

 

[the moops]

This is in only the case if we don't see a substantial increase in the availability in charging stations. That increase seems inevitable to me, and most certainly well before 2075

The perception will take longer to change than the reality.

Well sure. But 2075 is like a really really long time away.

 

[General Malaise]

Yeah, recycling is going to be a predominant cog in manufacturing new EV. The battery pack alone is going to be an instrumental source of cobalt.

 

[FairWarning]

Oh, I get that. This was just an example that I came across, as I go to campsites myself and I’m looking at how easily my family could use an EV. Campgrounds are all over so it makes sense. A 50 amp plug puts out some serious juice - my 24 foot travel trailer only uses a 30 amp. So that’s a serious plug they are using, and it still takes a very long time to fill it back up. That was my point, the video was just an example.

And just having larger batteries doesn’t solve this, it makes it worse (time needed to fully recharge standard range f150 at Dc fast charger is 36 minutes, but 44 for extended range model). And no, “most people” won’t be using fast charging stations, they will be charging at home (it’s really the only was an EV makes economic sense for most). Even with a home level 2 charger (NEMA 14-50 240 volt - like a dryer plug) recharge times are between 10-15 hours. Again, overnight. That’s another hurdle the EV will need to solve.

It really seems like you are trying to find examples to paint EV's in a bad light. Yes it takes 10-15 hours to charge at home, however that assumes the battery is almost dead. If you plug it in every night your battery is not going to be dead at the end of the day. People do not drive 200 miles every day. The average commute is 41 miles and even if you double that it is easy to charge that every night.

Many travel 200+ miles each way on weekends though.

 

[Joe Bryant]

EVs are around 7% of new vehicle sales today. With many more logistic barriers than smartphones, I see no reason to expect better results selling them to the masses. So the first two poll choices seem wildly optimistic. If anything, this thread has made me more convinced beyond 2075 is the correct answer.

Hater.

 

[The General]

EVs are around 7% of new vehicle sales today. With many more logistic barriers than smartphones, I see no reason to expect better results selling them to the masses. So the first two poll choices seem wildly optimistic. If anything, this thread has made me more convinced beyond 2075 is the correct answer.

Hater.

What was your vote?

 

[Joe Bryant]

EVs are around 7% of new vehicle sales today. With many more logistic barriers than smartphones, I see no reason to expect better results selling them to the masses. So the first two poll choices seem wildly optimistic. If anything, this thread has made me more convinced beyond 2075 is the correct answer.

Hater.

What was your vote?

I truly don't have a good feel for it. Which is why I asked in this thread.

If I were to vote, I'd probably lean toward 2065. But don't feel strongly about that guess.

 

[Dragons]

EVs are around 7% of new vehicle sales today. With many more logistic barriers than smartphones, I see no reason to expect better results selling them to the masses. So the first two poll choices seem wildly optimistic. If anything, this thread has made me more convinced beyond 2075 is the correct answer.

Hater.

Wow

 

[Terminalxylem]

EVs are around 7% of new vehicle sales today. With many more logistic barriers than smartphones, I see no reason to expect better results selling them to the masses. So the first two poll choices seem wildly optimistic. If anything, this thread has made me more convinced beyond 2075 is the correct answer.

Hater.

I know this in jest, but I’m really not at all. On the contrary, I’d bet I’m one of the greener football guys - I’ve had PV over 15 years, for example.

I physically waited in line to reserve a Model 3, sight unseen, pre-release. Actually reserved two that day, and a third later. For multiple reasons, all reservations were cancelled though. But I’m in the process of upgrading our home PV, including adding a Tesla battery, in anticipation of purchasing an EV in the next few years.

I’m even debating reserving an Aptera, the first car with the potential for complete independence from commercial fuel.

 

[MTskibum]

For the people who call the EVs green energy............how are they created, and how are they disposed of?

The best current use for "disposing" of car batteries is to not actually dispose of them at all, but rather group them up and use them as grid storage in places that use solar/wind for generation. They can help stabilize the grid.

Yes, it sucks when a battery degrades down to 70% when it is in a car, but these are perfect to reuse for grid storage.

Used EV batteries are storing solar power at grid scale — and making…

B2U Storage Solutions raises $10M to scale up site that sells solar power stored in Nissan Leaf batteries in California's wholesale markets.

www.canarymedia.com

 

[Bob Sacamano]

For comparison, the first smartphone was available to consumers in 1994. Twenty+ years later, we’re at ~87% market share.

and that is for something that doesn't challenge your perceived freedom (I guess other than tracking your every movement..hahah) like the perception of EV's leaving you dead miles from your destination with no charger in sight.

https://www.amazon.com/Anker-PowerCore-Charger-Delivery-Portable/dp/B08537MKBS

 

[MTskibum]

Things always take longer to change than we originally think. Just remember we were all supposed to have flying cars by now.

Counter point. Technology changes faster than people realize. Just imagine back when computers cost thousands of dollars and could only be used for word processing, spreadsheets, and simple games. Now we walk around with a super computer in our pocket.

I have been a tech nerd and subscribing to PC magazines since the late 80's/early 90's. Nobody was predicting our computing situation back then.

 

[MTskibum]

EVs are around 7% of new vehicle sales today. With many more logistic barriers than smartphones, I see no reason to expect better results selling them to the masses. So the first two poll choices seem wildly optimistic. If anything, this thread has made me more convinced beyond 2075 is the correct answer.

Hater.

I know this in jest, but I’m really not at all. On the contrary, I’d bet I’m one of the greener football guys - I’ve had PV over 15 years, for example.

I physically waited in line to reserve a Model 3, sight unseen, pre-release. Actually reserved two that day, and a third later. For multiple reasons, all reservations were cancelled though. But I’m in the process of upgrading our home PV, including adding a Tesla battery, in anticipation of purchasing an EV in the next few years.

I’m even debating reserving an Aptera, the first car with the potential for complete independence from commercial fuel.

The hippy, vegetarian, solar owning doctor is bashing EV adoption left and right, while the guy who has worked at 2 coal mines, currently works in big oil, and drives a pickup truck is preaching EV adoption harder than anyone in this thread.

The world is crazy

 

[Joe Bryant]

I have been a tech nerd and subscribing to PC magazines since the late 80's/early 90's. Nobody was predicting our computing situation back then.

That's interesting. I remember seeing the internet in the 90's and almost everyone I know understood it to be transformational and would turn into something like we have today. Of course we didn't see it exactly. But it was pretty clear it was a "free printing press" with incredible opportunity.

I built a business on it.

 

[MTskibum]

I have been a tech nerd and subscribing to PC magazines since the late 80's/early 90's. Nobody was predicting our computing situation back then.

That's interesting. I remember seeing the internet in the 90's and almost everyone I know understood it to be transformational and would turn into something like we have today. Of course we didn't see it exactly. But it was pretty clear it was a "free printing press" with incredible opportunity.

I built a business on it.

You were forward thinking, this business is pretty old you put together, you were definently one of the first on the internet bandwagon, however back in the age of geocities and usenet groups I do not think many people were predicting 200 dollar super computers the size of of a wallet.

 

[the moops]

Oh, I get that. This was just an example that I came across, as I go to campsites myself and I’m looking at how easily my family could use an EV. Campgrounds are all over so it makes sense. A 50 amp plug puts out some serious juice - my 24 foot travel trailer only uses a 30 amp. So that’s a serious plug they are using, and it still takes a very long time to fill it back up. That was my point, the video was just an example.

And just having larger batteries doesn’t solve this, it makes it worse (time needed to fully recharge standard range f150 at Dc fast charger is 36 minutes, but 44 for extended range model). And no, “most people” won’t be using fast charging stations, they will be charging at home (it’s really the only was an EV makes economic sense for most). Even with a home level 2 charger (NEMA 14-50 240 volt - like a dryer plug) recharge times are between 10-15 hours. Again, overnight. That’s another hurdle the EV will need to solve.

It really seems like you are trying to find examples to paint EV's in a bad light. Yes it takes 10-15 hours to charge at home, however that assumes the battery is almost dead. If you plug it in every night your battery is not going to be dead at the end of the day. People do not drive 200 miles every day. The average commute is 41 miles and even if you double that it is easy to charge that every night.

Many travel 200+ miles each way on weekends though.

True. People with EVs do that as well. It may take a little more planning and timing (getting groceries somewhere while you charge - for example) but a 200 mile there and back is totally doable with an EV for most people

 

[Ron Swanson]

I think Tesla's success has proven that most people don't buy EV's for "green" reasons. They buy them because they are super fun to drive and then justify it with better safety features (true, but only because Tesla piloted features and others have released on their EV's first like BlueCruise), lower maintenance (absolutely true), cheaper fuel, and finally the "green" aspect. People that buy EV's for "green" reasons buy Leafs so we pretty much know there aren't many of them.

EV's will take off quicker than anyone thinks because they are fun. No other reason is important.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

I think Tesla's success has proven that most people don't buy EV's for "green" reasons. They buy them because they are super fun to drive and then justify it with better safety features (true, but only because Tesla piloted features and others have released on their EV's first like BlueCruise), lower maintenance (absolutely true), cheaper fuel, and finally the "green" aspect. People that buy EV's for "green" reasons buy Leafs so we pretty much know there aren't many of them.

EV's will take off quicker than anyone thinks because they are fun. No other reason is important.

My wife always says we have no maintenance. We have deferred maintenance. When something needs to be done, it's going to cost.

 

[The General]

I think Tesla's success has proven that most people don't buy EV's for "green" reasons. They buy them because they are super fun to drive and then justify it with better safety features (true, but only because Tesla piloted features and others have released on their EV's first like BlueCruise), lower maintenance (absolutely true), cheaper fuel, and finally the "green" aspect. People that buy EV's for "green" reasons buy Leafs so we pretty much know there aren't many of them.

EV's will take off quicker than anyone thinks because they are fun. No other reason is important.

Yep. Great point.

Tesla made a superior driving experience. The interface, the ability to update car through software, and of course the speed, among a bunch of other nice styling details.

The fuel savings, the lack of maintenance, and green aspects are a huge bonus.

 

[Terminalxylem]

EVs are around 7% of new vehicle sales today. With many more logistic barriers than smartphones, I see no reason to expect better results selling them to the masses. So the first two poll choices seem wildly optimistic. If anything, this thread has made me more convinced beyond 2075 is the correct answer.

Hater.

I know this in jest, but I’m really not at all. On the contrary, I’d bet I’m one of the greener football guys - I’ve had PV over 15 years, for example.

I physically waited in line to reserve a Model 3, sight unseen, pre-release. Actually reserved two that day, and a third later. For multiple reasons, all reservations were cancelled though. But I’m in the process of upgrading our home PV, including adding a Tesla battery, in anticipation of purchasing an EV in the next few years.

I’m even debating reserving an Aptera, the first car with the potential for complete independence from commercial fuel.

The hippy, vegetarian, solar owning doctor is bashing EV adoption left and right, while the guy who has worked at 2 coal mines, currently works in big oil, and drives a pickup truck is preaching EV adoption harder than anyone in this thread.

The world is crazy

I don’t who you’re talking about, but I am all for EVs making ICE obsolete. Just think it will take a lot more time than you do .

 

[Joe Bryant]

You were forward thinking, this business is pretty old you put together, you were definently one of the first on the internet bandwagon, however back in the age of geocities and usenet groups I do not think many people were predicting 200 dollar super computers the size of of a wallet.

Thanks but I just disagree. I think back in the days of Geocities and Usenet groups we were thinking this is pretty much how it would be. In some ways, the AI stuff and good voice recognition has actually taken longer than I think lots of people thought it would.

 

[matttyl]

I think Tesla's success has proven that most people don't buy EV's for "green" reasons. They buy them because they are super fun to drive and then justify it with better safety features (true, but only because Tesla piloted features and others have released on their EV's first like BlueCruise), lower maintenance (absolutely true), cheaper fuel, and finally the "green" aspect. People that buy EV's for "green" reasons buy Leafs so we pretty much know there aren't many of them.

EV's will take off quicker than anyone thinks because they are fun. No other reason is important.

They of course buy for green reasons. Green meaning money. If/when gas goes above $4/gallon (or above $6 in Cali), people will start crunching the numbers. Tesla will really win if they can figure the insurance part out. Saving a typical family $200 in gas per month AND $100+ in insurance (due to lower cost to insure a safer car that has fewer accidents). All from a car that’s currently starting under $40k and could be under $35k in a year (all before a potential $7,500 tax credit), they won’t be able to produce them fast enough.

 

[Ron Swanson]

I think Tesla's success has proven that most people don't buy EV's for "green" reasons. They buy them because they are super fun to drive and then justify it with better safety features (true, but only because Tesla piloted features and others have released on their EV's first like BlueCruise), lower maintenance (absolutely true), cheaper fuel, and finally the "green" aspect. People that buy EV's for "green" reasons buy Leafs so we pretty much know there aren't many of them.

EV's will take off quicker than anyone thinks because they are fun. No other reason is important.

They of course buy for green reasons. Green meaning money. If/when gas goes above $4/gallon (or above $6 in Cali), people will start crunching the numbers. Tesla will really win if they can figure the insurance part out. Saving a typical family $200 in gas per month AND $100+ in insurance (due to lower cost to insure a safer car that has fewer accidents). All from a car that’s currently starting under $40k and could be under $35k in a year (all before a potential $7,500 tax credit), they won’t be able to produce them fast enough.

I stand by what I said. The fun aspect is what motivates them to buy. Savings just helps to justify it. If money saving was why they bought we'd see a bazillion Leafs on the road.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I think Tesla's success has proven that most people don't buy EV's for "green" reasons. They buy them because they are super fun to drive and then justify it with better safety features (true, but only because Tesla piloted features and others have released on their EV's first like BlueCruise), lower maintenance (absolutely true), cheaper fuel, and finally the "green" aspect. People that buy EV's for "green" reasons buy Leafs so we pretty much know there aren't many of them.

EV's will take off quicker than anyone thinks because they are fun. No other reason is important.

They of course buy for green reasons. Green meaning money. If/when gas goes above $4/gallon (or above $6 in Cali), people will start crunching the numbers. Tesla will really win if they can figure the insurance part out. Saving a typical family $200 in gas per month AND $100+ in insurance (due to lower cost to insure a safer car that has fewer accidents). All from a car that’s currently starting under $40k and could be under $35k in a year (all before a potential $7,500 tax credit), they won’t be able to produce them fast enough.

I stand by what I said. The fun aspect is what motivates them to buy. Savings just helps to justify it. If money saving was why they bought we'd see a bazillion Leafs on the road.

This seems clearly right to me. When I switched over to an electric lawnmower, it wasn't because of the environmental benefit. It was because my electric mower offered me the opportunity to cut my grass in peace and quiet, with no fumes and no maintenance, on a single charge, at about the same price point as a gas-powered mower. I'm not opposed to saving the earth, but that was not at all on my mind when I went that route. EVs seem to be pretty much the same -- get over a couple of (for now, significant) hurdles and you don't need anybody shoving anyone in that direction. They'll sell themselves.

 

[matttyl]

I think Tesla's success has proven that most people don't buy EV's for "green" reasons. They buy them because they are super fun to drive and then justify it with better safety features (true, but only because Tesla piloted features and others have released on their EV's first like BlueCruise), lower maintenance (absolutely true), cheaper fuel, and finally the "green" aspect. People that buy EV's for "green" reasons buy Leafs so we pretty much know there aren't many of them.

EV's will take off quicker than anyone thinks because they are fun. No other reason is important.

They of course buy for green reasons. Green meaning money. If/when gas goes above $4/gallon (or above $6 in Cali), people will start crunching the numbers. Tesla will really win if they can figure the insurance part out. Saving a typical family $200 in gas per month AND $100+ in insurance (due to lower cost to insure a safer car that has fewer accidents). All from a car that’s currently starting under $40k and could be under $35k in a year (all before a potential $7,500 tax credit), they won’t be able to produce them fast enough.

I stand by what I said. The fun aspect is what motivates them to buy. Savings just helps to justify it. If money saving was why they bought we'd see a bazillion Leafs on the road.

At the price point they have been for the last few years, for the most part, that’s correct. As prices continue to fall, the economic part will play a larger role. If it were all about fun we’d have Porches and Mini Coopers and such all over.

Yes I said mini Coopers. My last car was a mini and yes I did buy it cause it was fun (and a manual shift). But I was able to afford it because it wasn’t that expensive and was great on gas. It, to me, was the rare combination of fun and economical .