Anything to keep the auto industry from admitting how badly they screwed up by sticking with ICE cars.
I'm sure protesting nuclear so they can keep ripping up towns for coal is fine, though.
I'm sure protesting nuclear so they can keep ripping up towns for coal is fine, though.
https://www.destatis.de/EN/Themes/Economic-Sectors-Enterpris...
Germany's shutdown of their nuclear generating capacity, and their dependence on Russian natural gas was a major factor in the invasion, and hence Germany's necessity to shift back to coal.
It was a stupid move, considering that Germany also pushed to classify gas power as "clean" in the EU.
The current government wants to push this date up to 2030 and is evaluating if and how that's even possible (https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/innenpolitik/vorgezogener-k...).
That'll show 'em!
But yes, from a strictly capitalist point of view, the car companies did not screw up, at least in the short term. They sold their cars at prices that customers were ok with, and made a bundle of money.
So what? Capitalism successfully lined the carmakers pockets' with profits, but our world is becoming less and less habitable for humans every year. Great outcome.
Not to mention that EVs are enormously popular! They are only being produced now because Tesla is making them. EVs are far more reliable and cheaper to maintain than ICE cars, which is bad if you're a car manufacturer because people buy EVs less frequently than unreliable ICE cars.
"ICE only exists because customers only want them" has no basis in fact.
Huh? The irony of you saying "no basis in fact"...
Design life for a typical ICE car is typically 10 years of service... but not limited to that, as many cars live way past 10 years.
The most expensive part of an EV are batteries, that have a few hundred cycles(the polymer batteries are yet to get to Tesla packs). Let's pretend that everyone gets a 310mile/500km ranges(which is one of the most expensive EVs).
That means that an EV will trash the battery(a critical, 100% unconditional, limit) within 155K miles/250K Km.
We're literally don't have statistics for how often an EV must be fully replaced yet. EV production boom is way less than 10 years.
So maybe you should consider the saying "Pot, meet kettle"
And EV batteries last 1,500+ cycles, not 300.
But again - a claim that "people buy EVs less" isn't grounded in any fact at all. You know, because people replace cars far more often than "engine failure" or "battery pack is bust"
The sort of shallow charge and discharge cycles you see with EV's aren't the same as spec 80% high rate discharges.
You could grossly estimate battery life by multiplying the spec battery life in cycles times the EV's max range.
My argument is simply to refute the claim that "people don't buy EVs as often"... Which is based on estimates and and gut feeling, not exactly backed by any statistics at this point.
Right now - we know for a fact that ICE vehicles can run for decades, we have only very limited data on Li-ion road use EVs. And even then, we will only have only a decade of a smaller number of older generation battery pack EVs.
There are plenty of decades old EVs that are specialized, but they aren't anywhere close to what a Tesla is. We can't compare electric golf carts and Tesla Model 3.
They don't make them reliable.. I wonder why?.
Trick #2: many car platforms share engines. Try to buy a car with an engine that has been used for a few years.
These two things alone, will ensure you aren't a beta tester
NOTE: car manufacturers pay through the nose for warranty repair work. They quickly fix all things which can impact that bottom line, which is why later years in a car refresh are much more stable.
Which is why:
Trick #3: never buy any car without a bumper to bumper warranty, and never if 2 years. Be wary of anything less than 4.
Why? Someone with a 4 year warranty, will fix problems with a model generation of a car, to save issues even 4 years out. And this means that stability is ensured for years beyond that, typically.
There are about 500,000 electric cars registered in CA, out of about 15,000,000 registrations total. So, ~3.5%. When one factors out the owners who have an ICE vehicle in addition, the % probably goes to less than 1.
That's CA; the best-case scenario. This is also after CAFE tax credits have gone to subsidize electric vehicle production, as well as subsidies and tax credits to electric vehicle purchasers. The original CARB ZEV goal was to have 10% of California's fleet electrified. This goal was set in...1990, and was expected to happen by 2000.
I'm sure it was a hard choice to make. The manufacturers could ask for government support for their business until such a time that government ZEV goals could be achieved with a profitable product, or...they could build the cars that people would pay for.
Any major displacement to something as foundational as cars isn't going to happen overnight. Tesla made EV's cool, and that has driven the traditional carmakers to offer more and better EVs, but we're still far from parity when it comes to what you can buy. All the traditional carmakers have a relatively small number of EV options, and they're not available at all trim levels. Like carmaker XYZ but don't want to drive a hatchback? ICE car it is. Like carmaker ABC but don't like the single trim level sedan they chose to base their EV on? ICE car it is.
I would be surprised beyond belief if these manufacturers were not getting pressure from the oil industry to only do the minimum when offering EV models.
Regarding negative externalities: if the price tag of a new car included the cost of all the pollution you're going to be spewing into the air while driving it, EV pricing would look even more attractive, even if we did the same for EVs and included the externality costs of battery manufacture and disposal/recycling.
I was in the market for a new car a year and a half ago. I really wanted to buy an EV, but none of the available models were what I was looking for in a car. Unfortunately, I bought another ICE car. I'm very much hoping that, in 10 years, when I start thinking about another new car, the EV options will be much more varied. I expect there are a lot of people like me, who want to buy an EV, but the product they want isn't on the market (despite equivalent ICE options being available).
If there was a suitably compelling electric vehicle for everyone, would the ICE market go to zero? Sure-very little of the market wants cars that burn gas for the sake of burning gas. But, that's not a useful observation.
>Regarding negative externalities: if the price tag of a new car included the cost of all the pollution you're going to be spewing into the air while driving it
Other than CO2, what pollution?
>I would be surprised beyond belief if these manufacturers were not getting pressure from the oil industry to only do the minimum when offering EV models.
The oil industry also produces the feedstock for generating the electricity used to charge the electric cars. "Journalist discovers Tesla charging station with a discretely-hidden diesel genset nearby" is practically a meme at this point.
You can only say this, if you stop your ears, and explain away anyone as wanting one.
For example, no EV has the range I require. There are many in my boat. No, I'm not wrong, and you can never be right, telling me I'm wrong in what I need. Ever.
As well, trying to claim EVs are more reliable is an amazing assertion, many buy ICE cars, put 250000km on them with only brake and tire changes, and drove them a decade. I know I do.
In fact, it's literally impossible to determine which takes more maintenance, because the majority of EVs aren't a decade old. And the ones that are, are very early models, and not indicatively comparable to the volume of ICE cars, even now.
I wonder, how.many decades of car ownership do you speak from? Do you have reliably studies going back decades for EVs, with large production runs?
You're just saying what you hope is true. That's not how reality works.
So yes, you may have very specific needs that limit your choice of vehicles. But the needs of the vast majority of car owners can be served by current EV technology perfectly well.
Apart from that: EVs have less moving parts by an order of magnitude compared to ICE cars. Of course they are more reliable, especially when you take into account that many (most?) drivers do not adhere to the very stringent service/fluid change intervals on their cars. Again, you might be different, but most people abuse their cars. My parent's VW T5 for example just crossed 350.000 miles and already had several minor engine issues in addition to a costly particle filter swap.
It's funny, because my $70k Tesla Model Y will have to have it's whole battery pack replaced by the time it reaches 155k Miles.
Can you guess which part of any Tesla is the most expensive one? The damn battery pack...
Now compare replacing the whole car(yes, you can't just replace the battery pack) to VW having just "several minor engine issues in addition to a costly particle filter swap".
I like EVs and will switch my Chevy Colorado to an EV as soon as possible(they're always sold out). But your example is quite literally proof, that an ICE will outlast an EV.
(also: I mistyped in my above comment. I meant to say 250.000km not 350.000 miles. Sorry about that)
We know ICEs can last for decades. We don't know how long Li-ion based EVs will last, practically. Theoretically they will not last as much as ICE.
While we don't have conclusive data - let's not pretend that anything about EV's longevity is a fact.
The only fact about EVs - they haven't been out long enough to make a statement based on empirical evidence.
(Take it from an EV advocate in general and someone heavily invested in Tesla stock)
Yes, batteries degrade to a certain extend. But especially with higher range cars, this seems to be an issue of limited severity and it certainly does not seem to impact i.e. resale values of EVs.
Which is hardly enough data, to make a claim that "people buy EVs less often". We will only be able to make that claim, after a while of EV usage - which should also include recycling of the batteries.
> resale values of EVs
Battery degradation definitely has little impact on EVs, it's also the case with ICE - the runtime of an engine doesn't affect the resale value. Mileage would be the primary objective number that impacts the resale value.
My 2020 Tesla's resale value is up and down, regardless of the battery pack. It's very clear, that it has very little to do with the batteries.
All supposition, much as your assertions about reliability. Reliability doesn't come from the amount of moving parts alone.
You're just theorizing, which is fine in of itself, but not when you present it as fact.
So more or less a very typical commute. My 2016 Nissan Leaf could do this daily drive for 5 days without recharging, today's model's can do half a month of this before the battery is empty. Again: your needs might be on the extreme end and not suited to an EV (currently) but you are the absolute exception. This is not theorizing, it has been well studied and established.
For a densely populated country such as Germany, you have provided one study which speaks of averages.
Of course, this doesn't show the spread of that average. And of course, it is ridiculous to presume this is normal, as we all know how densely packed Germany is.
You are trying to claim that one of the outliers, that is, German driving habits, is an average!
This is more than the average German car drives daily, but still perfectly manageable for modern (or even 5 year old) EVs. Even assuming an EV can't be charged anywhere, it could still handle 6 days worth of these trips. Even if you commute 300+ miles daily, you could probably spend 20 minutes per trip at a public charger.
Again, maybe this isn't for you. That is fine. But EVs are perfectly suitable for the vast majority of car users and it would be up to you at this point to disprove that statement.
As I said prior, what is the spread?
And beyond that, if someone drives very little for 8 months, then drives a lot for 4 months, which happens a lot (kids, summer, vacations, cabins in the summer)...
Many people have range anxiety. People keep saying it's silly, and keep explaining why.
How about you just realise, instead, people with range anxiety aren't morons, and 100% have made a valid assessment?
Of course people aren't "morons" and I never said as much. But people generally do what they are used to and what trusted authorities (and I use that term deliberately loosely) tell them what is ok. Nobody has time to research every little aspect of their lives in-depth to make a completely informed decision. So if people like you are telling everyone who will listen "many/most people will not be served well by an EV," that has consequences, the same way as if I would tell people "there is no justification whatsoever to drive an ICE" (which I'm explicitly not doing).
I've looked into this quite a bit and all data I can find points to EVs being a smart choice for most people if they intend to buy a new car or if they can find a suitable used one (the market availability for the latter is still small). It should be the natural choice if there is not some special circumstance in your life (as seems to be in yours).