It's not all subsidies though. Havent Tesla's subsidies in the USA run out?
It comes down to a few reasons for me:
* If you can't charge at home, EVs generally don't seem to make economical sense
* The charging network is not well enough developed, especially when considering peak times like public holidays etc.
* If you don't have access to the Tesla supercharger network, you will very likely overpay on charging. So much so that it makes an ICE car look cheap to refuel.
* Getting a used EV is still a very weird experience with one of the most important indicators very hard to determine: battery health
I wonder if evaluations similar to mine have led to many people in the US owning EVs only as their second car and still retain an ICE car "on the side" (or vice versa).
If these issues are not resolved, I expect the EV market share to top at about 30% for the foreseeable future. Hybrids and CNG vehicles seem to be a more economical and practical alternative for the masses while also significantly reducing emissions when compared to traditional ICE cars.
Nonetheless, you can charge your EV on a normal powerplug. Should be very easy for home owners to charge at home.
No clue about the charging network in US, in EU its good enough.
Tesla is cheaper and more expensive in germany, it highly depends on what you use.
EVs show that batterie life is no real issue. Not a bigger concern than your engine block breaking.
Hybrids have horrible co2 values and CNG are very limited available while a plug is available nearly everywere. I have charged at hotels often enough now.
EV is a lot more fun to drive and its easy to save a lot if you have solar panels. I don't think it will top at 30% (what a random number).
How frequently do you drive and how long are your trips? Where and on what network do you charge? What do you pay for charging?
> Nonetheless, you can charge your EV on a normal powerplug. Should be very easy for home owners to charge at home.
What if you aren't a home owner? What if you are a home owner and the car parking is too far away from your house?
> No clue about the charging network in US, in EU its good enough.
Where in the EU are you talking about? These all look like blanket statements to me as they don't consider the real context of a person trying to decide if an EV is practical for them.
> Tesla is cheaper and more expensive in germany
What does that mean?
> EVs show that batterie life is no real issue. Not a bigger concern than your engine block breaking.
An engine block breaking is a real issue. That's why mileage is reported and it's quite common to do inspections before buying a used car. Battery health is not reported and there is no straightforward way to do an inspection.
> EV is a lot more fun to drive and its easy to save a lot if you have solar panels.
What if you don't have solar panels and are on a budget? Does it help that it's fun to drive if you can't afford it or it makes your life impractical?
> 30% (what a random number)
I said "at about 30%". It's a gut guess, so not completely random.
I think in general this conversation is a good example of how some people assume that their privileged life situation is just normal and everybody owns a home with solar panels and a garage with a charger. But that's not true. Maybe 30% of people can afford that, hence my gut guess on the "random" number.
>How frequently do you drive and how long are your trips? Where and on what network do you charge? What do you pay for charging?
Between 40 and 60 cent per kWh. Around 1200km/month.
>> Nonetheless, you can charge your EV on a normal powerplug. Should be very easy for home owners to charge at home.
> What if you aren't a home owner? What if you are a home owner and the car parking is too far away from your house?
I'm a flat owner and got my charging setup 3 month ago in the underground parking lot. We had to discuss it in the owner meeting and germany made a law which enforces them to take it seriuos. If legal reasons are not solving your issue or you can't charge, you are probably not a good candidate for EV right now.
>> No clue about the charging network in US, in EU its good enough.
> Where in the EU are you talking about? These all look like blanket statements to me as they don't consider the real context of a person trying to decide if an EV is practical for them.
Same with your statement tbh. My EV can hold 500km / 310 miles. I have a charging spot 15 minutes away by foot. It really really didn't matter to me to think about charging a little bit more.
>> Tesla is cheaper and more expensive in germany
> What does that mean?
Tesla has daily rates, special offers and a membership. Others like EnBW has this too. There are a lot of apps and rates you can get from different companies. Tesla charging network is just one.
>> EVs show that batterie life is no real issue. Not a bigger concern than your engine block breaking.
> An engine block breaking is a real issue. That's why mileage is reported and it's quite common to do inspections before buying a used car. Battery health is not reported and there is no straightforward way to do an inspection.
But we do know from existing EVs (we have them already for a long time now) that the battery health is not a big issue.
>> EV is a lot more fun to drive and its easy to save a lot if you have solar panels.
> What if you don't have solar panels and are on a budget? Does it help that it's fun to drive if you can't afford it or it makes your life impractical?
No and people who can't afford it are not the people who should start buying EVs right now. I think thats a communication missconception. Plenty of people who can afford EVs are not buying them, if you are not the right person, your only action you should do is to say 'i want an affordable EV and laws making it possible'.
Nonetheless i'm a little bit idealistic and think we need to change.
>> 30% (what a random number)
> I said "at about 30%". It's a gut guess, so not completely random.
If you are not an automotive expert, your gut guess is random. Right now we are at 2%! If breakthroughs are happening (solid state, cheaper, ...) it can easily jump faster than you think. If you don't have anything to say why it should platoon at 30% its random.
> I think in general this conversation is a good example of how some people assume that their privileged life situation is just normal and everybody owns a home with solar panels and a garage with a charger. But that's not true. Maybe 30% of people can afford that, hence my gut guess on the "random" number.
I believe that people who are absolutly NOT in the position at all to think about EVs are feeling addressed.
Have to make generalized statements without experience. That's the important difference and why your claim that my statements are the same is wrong. I don't have experience with an EV in my current life situation. And I won't get that without buying an EV. So the only way I can judge if I should buy one is by making generalized statements and trying to get specific answers from people who have that experience. This is why the EV owners should be more careful about generalized claims than the ones who consider buying an EV.
> Nonetheless i'm a little bit idealistic and think we need to change.
Yes. I think we can boil this discussion down to that point. This is not about what solution is actually implementable for everyone. It's a very idealistic discussion.
In a lot of countries, there is legislation which is more or less enforcing EVs in the near future (2030/2035) on everyone without making it possible for them to reasonably own such a car. If this is a bet on a technology breakthrough in the next 5 years, then good luck with that. Otherwise, this seems to be just an attempt to exclude many (if not most) people from car ownership going forward, thereby further enhancing inequality while making those excluded feel bad about themselves.
The same reason why a lot of other things are necessary by government like getting rid of lead in wall color. Or other human rights.
The governance allows companies to push in a direction.
The interesting thing is not that someone sets a target, the interesting thing will be what happens if we don't achieve it. And its obvious that we can't enforce it if its not possible.
After all the poor people need to get to work and they are needed. I don't think anyone wants to exclude them from car ownership.
Arguably, that's not true. Tesla who apparently pioneered the recent success in EVs started off with that development without any subsidies. If the technology is good enough to justify a switch for people, it will work in the open market without any political push or subsidy. Subsidies generally lead to warped markets and wealth transfers which is neither evaluated nor accounted for usually, hence adding to the aforementioned increase in inequality.
> The interesting thing is not that someone sets a target, the interesting thing will be what happens if we don't achieve it. And its obvious that we can't enforce it if its not possible.
Why do you think that it's necessary to control people that way? I believe everybody would want the cleanest and best car possible regardless. People would even be happy paying a bit more if it were beneficial for the environment. That's not the issue. The issue is that it still has to work for them.
> After all the poor people need to get to work and they are needed. I don't think anyone wants to exclude them from car ownership.
Then why embrace policies that are based on hard limits, restrictions and punishments?
People don't act rational and plenty of people literaly don't care about the environment or other aspects.
Tesla was pushed by Elon Musk Money and he did this because he saw the market and had the money to disrupt it. Classical car manufacturer wouldn't have build EVs ever because they don't care.
Having a margin of 30% of classical build cars is nothing you spit on.
And there are plenty of market regulations which are most of the time here to protect or help us consumers. Shell, BP and co spending millions for lobbying.
From an economyical standpoint we also have an issue: Plenty of people don't know or don't care to solve the initial investment problem. Figting classical cars, were the market was optimized for 50 years is not easy to disrupt.
Basically non disruptive for consumers alone.
The punishment, hard limits and restrictions are not here to punish consumers but producers.
BMW you are not allowed to sell ICE Cars in europe 2030 vs. dear consumer you are not allowed to buy ICE cars in europe 2030.
Nonetheless in regards of our specific transition: We are actually trying to transition faster than normal because of climate change. We have a huge issue in our society regarding the relevants of this topic.
Old generations mostly ignore it or dont care, the young are frightend and we in the middle (me) im in the middle of my normal life while trying to push more for doing more.
For someone who thinks that a sudden increase in ocean temperature is a very bad sign, we can't wait until everyone has slowly and steadily transitioned. Instead the adoption curve has to be pushed.
Ok, that is the end of the discussion then. I think you are not in a position to claim that I am trolling when using a throwaway account that was created literally 3 hours ago.
If you believe that transitioning the planet from ICE cars to EVs will solve climate change, then I cannot help but say that I think this is more than unrealistic and misguided thinking. If it will make a difference at all, then it's only a very small part - not enough to reach the implied goal for sure. The entire transportation sector in the US accounts for roughly 30% of the US greenhouse gas emissions. Cars for individual transport are only a fraction of this. Swapping those over to EVs will not erase all CO2 emissions, but rather reduce them. This is because both production causes CO2 and electricity is partly generated using carbon emitting processes. We are thus talking about a small reduction of a part of a part and that needs to be put in context with the costs for that transition. Meanwhile, emissions in other places on the same planet is going up. Drastically.
We urgently need to rethink our approach to "normality" if we really aim to change anything about CO2 emissions at scale in a short period of time. Individual choices are the most important factor here. Forcing people to do something they don't want is not the solution as it simply doesn't scale unless you don't want to go full tyranny. And this is exactly what that is - one group of privileged people thinking they are better than the others and therefore believe they have the authority to tell them what to do.
If you believe you have done your part in mitigating climate change because you have switched to an EV, please think again. You are very likely making the problem worse, because you stop thinking after that and religiously attempt to convert others with your ideology without taking into account their individual situation.
And yes, I really believe that people are, in general, good. Even after discussions like this.
Alone last week when i discussed with the other owners of our apartmentbuilding to put solar panels on it, my 'for co2' was basically humoring the others.
Im also on hn for 10 years, i just spend too much time on it, unfortunate creating a new account is too simple :|.
Cars make 75% of transportation co2. Electricity and heating is only double of transportation. So its definitly relevant.
I don't think that EV is enough but its one of the few big changes we as a technology based society need to do.
But i also believe heavily in economy of scale and that an EV can be cheaper and easier to make in a few years than ICEs can. I also believe that EVs are necessary to really start the sustainable supply chain: we take renewable energy to make EVs and Batteries, use the resources of EVs and Batteries later to use them longer after second use and than recycle them to 99%.
Every ICE will always consume fuel.
We also have a huge benefit of investing money today into EV than ICE due to other synergies: Bi-directinal charging will help us to stabilize the grid for renewable. Cheap batteries help us to add more storage at home to use the solar enegy longer.
And in regards to forcing anyone: Again based on the jump in ocean temperature, weather changes in germany etc. i really think we need to do A LOT more A LOT faster. But this article is about EVs not about heat pumps, geothermal, etc.
You accused me of trolling when I said that I believe people are good in general and that you shouldn't force them to do anything. I think you shouldn't be surprised if that comes across as an offense.
> Most people care somehow but not enough at all to risk anything. They are even afraid of 'new technology'.
You need to make it attractive for people. Think about the risk/reward here. People are not dumb. They know that investing into new technology comes with a risk per se from experience. They also know that their investment has a slim chance of doing anything to reduce global CO2 emissions because many other factors are at play here. Then, it's not even clear how much of that makes for the current warming. So you need to give them something which is an obvious benefit with regard to their current life situation. If you have access to charging at home, solar panels, and an EV, that's a financial benefit that doesn't need much more explaining. Now you need to find a way to make that accessible to everyone. Better charging infrastructure, increasing range, and bringing down the cost of the technology is key and it takes time.
Yes it takes time but i strongly believe that this section of the curve can be shortened a lot by forcing companies by law, pushing consumers to risk a little bit more.
Do you regularly talk to older people or people outside of a big city? Because you constantly refute my points regarding this and all of those are examples of real encounters i had.
"Its easier to just go to a fuel station" "Its cheaper" "I like the sound of an engine" "I want to be able to drive 1000km without a stop" (while driving not more than 50km per day ...) "EVs explode" . . .
I don't dislike EVs in general. It's just that the points I mentioned don't justify the benefits at this point for me. "A better experience overall" should include the practical and economical factors. The primary purpose of a car is to get from A to B without going financially or temporally bankrupt.
EVs also have significant drawbacks in usability. E.g. if you don't have person chargers or need to drive long distances.
>I love the way my EV drives
Which isn't a function of the electric Motor. ICE cars, especially in the Tesla price range have great suspension and steering tuning as well.
For most people comfort is an important factor, there torque is irrelevant. Well tuned suspension, steering, high quality seats and a good infotainment system is important for that.
In fact most your driving experience has no relation to the engine. High torque matters for fast acceleration, which is a fine thing to enjoy, but I absolutely prefer a good suspension and handling over 3s less 0 to 100km/h.
>Which isn't a function of the electric Motor.
If the torque is what they love it is a function of the electric motor though
Even the fast acceleration is not purely the result of the motor.
2) I have a home charger--Yes, I have to plug in the car every other day, but I also never have to visit a gas station again.
The EV is the far superior vehicle, both for road trips and local trips. We've done 4 2000 mile trips in it, and many 500 mile ones.
The reason we still have an ICE vehicle is because it's rarely used because it's so inferior. We only use it when we are going in two different directions simultaneously. It only gets 3000 miles/year of use, it's not worth replacing. It'll get replaced whenever something expensive on it dies.
Do you have access to charging at home?
That's the single most decisive factor in my estimation for whether an EV can replace an ICE car realistically or not at this time.
I think both @concordDance and @littlestymaar are correct:
It's not all subsidies even though subsidies did play a big part. It's good that governments gave those subsidies out, and this is the right time to end them. The future is bright.
>this is the right time to end them
I mean it did give a boost to ICE sales and make companies reconsider their jump away from those.
I disagree. While they have a sticker price implying luxury, they justify the price on the grounds of electricity being cheaper than petrol and diesel, not on build quality.
> I mean it did give a boost to ICE sales and make companies reconsider their jump away from those.
Always would in the short term, but the main cost and supply limit is batteries, and supply is now high enough (and cost low enough) that governments are better off just mandating the change rather than subsidising it; there's a few examples around the world of governments subsidising petrol, with the obvious results — everyone has backed the subsidy into their lives, and it would be political suicide to remove even in dictatorships.
Yes, certainly Tesla isn't known for build quality. But they don't even try to enter the low cost or budget EV market. High sticker prices for bad cars screams failed luxury to me.
As for competition in USA - name some cars that are competitive with Model 3.
In AU/NZ we do have quite a bit Chinese cars that are about 30% cheaper than Teslas, albeit much smaller and has less features, so they really compete against other small ICE vehicles.