Guest satirical rebuttal by David Middleton
Willis’ post on EV’s was very unfair… At least according to some of the comments. So I thought I would post some graphs demonstrating that EV’s aren’t quite so astoundingly unsuccessful.
One of my favorite metrics is Ford F-Series pickup trucks versus electric vehicles. F-Series sales literally crush EV sales… But, EV’s don’t appear to be losing much ground against the F-Series. EV’s are falling further behind F-Series sales at a somewhat slower pace than they were in 2017.
2018 sales extrapolated from Q1 2018.
The sum total of US EV sales (all makes and models) has almost caught up with Jeep Wrangler sales…
The EV market share has literally skyrocketed from 0.4% to 1.3% of US light weight vehicle sales.
At this blistering pace, EV’s are on track to claiming a 13% market share by the end of the 21st century!
On top of all of this “good news” for EV’s… This should push the Cobalt Cliff off to the 22nd century!
As usual, any and all sarcasm was purely intentional.
…0.4% to 1.3% of US light weight vehicle sales…
That’s….thats OVER a three times increase! What other company can offer such a huge expansion in such a short time?
Useful hints for statistical liars: Stress percentage rises, cherry-pick rate increases, and make predictions based on simple linear extrapolation.
If you have only a small number of cars, pick a statistic where small numbers are good – the whole Tesla fleet only creates X amount of CO2 compared to the fleet of Fords and GMs.
…
Dodgy Geezer…
Get a grip, man! “3 times” doesn’t sound big enough to impress people! Let’s call it a 300 percent increase instead……or maybe we could design an “EV anomaly” based on the deviation from average sales of electric cars from 1972-2010 and show how EVs will take over the world and save the planet!/sarc off
except 3x is a 200% increase. 😉
Either way, such an increase in squat is still squat.
@Roy Spencer – Hmmpf, denialist! The models says it’s 300%.
Dr. Spencer probably forgot to apply the anthropogenic aerosol flux adjustment… 😉
We’ll just say 300% rise anyway, Roy. It sounds bigger, and nnumerate people won’t know the difference. That’s most voters. If anyone catches on, we’ll just say it’s “standard kleptocratic nomenclature” and that they should shut up or we’ll send Al Gore around.
except that it is 300% of the previous level
You guys aren’t thinking big enough. EV sales increased 200% compared to an overall sales increase of around 20%. So the correct way to say it is:
EV sales increased at a rate 900% faster than ICE cars.
David, is that anything like a Heisenberg compensator?
You guys are still thinking waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too small.
If you want a REALLY impressive statistic, then you need to reduce each vehicle to the number of atoms contained in its entire construction, and then multiply 200%…ugh… 300%…ugh…whatever by that number of atoms (probably 10 to some humongous large power). And then define the amount of energy in this number of atoms in terms of Hiroshima bombs, if all the energy could be extracted.
Now THAT’s an impressive statistic !
Its about wording.. It has increased to 300%!
Except that the”Manufacture”of Tesla batteries alone,produces 8″Years”worth of CO2.That alone makes EV ‘look ridiculous.WE abandoned”Electric cars”(along with the Stanley Steamer)100 years ago and windmills 60 years ago.They were replaced by”Coal Power”and”Internal Combustion”engines.So remind me how come the Greenies keep telling US that EV’s and Wind power are the future?
And at that rate of increase, every vehicle will be electric right soon now? Sort of the same argument Ehrlich made on population, with the same validity.
Tom
well, by 2040 the UK government will have banned the sales of all IC engined cars, so it all must be true! We’ll all soon be driving around like the Jetsons. 🙂
So what I’m hearing is France is set to make a killing selling cars to people from the UK.
“by 2040 the UK government will have banned the sales of all IC engined cars”….
and put 100’s of thousands of people out of work
and prevented 100’s of thousands more from getting to work.
MarkW
What work?
In response to Kurly’s idea that France will make a killing selling ICE cars in the UK, not so fast. It would take a lot of engineering to build a mirror-image French car with the steering wheel on the right to be driven in the UK. The Japanese car-makers (Toyota, Honda, etc.) will probably fill the void more quickly, because they already make cars with the steering wheel on the right for use in Japan, where cars drive on the left.
Ah, but the Brexit agreement with the EU will require the UK to change to driving on the right by 2040…
Who’s going to pay to turn all the signs around?
David,
My understanding is that, due to a paragraph in the Lisbon Treaty, Foreign HGVs will be able to (required to) drive on the right from 2032, with 3 Tonne trucks changing in 2036, and all surviving cars in 2040.
Auto
I’ll make a point to stay off road from 2032 on.
An old joke here in Norway is that when Sweden switched to right side driving in 1967, they did it step by step. Buses and lorries the first day, then other cars and motorcycles…. 😉
According to one of our trolls, in Europe the subsidize electrics even more than we do. They also sell more electrics per capita than we do. And this proves that even absent subsidies, electrics are poised to take over the market.
Mark,
Agree that trolls may say that . . . . . . . . . .
Not all trolls are connected with reality.
Auto
To evaluate the statistics, one must look into the future when there will be no subsidies, electricity will be taxed just like fuels (fossil), etc. For example, our cash strapped state of Connecticut just extended the rebates for EVs. Sickening. For a good comparison of true costs of gas and el., similar cars, read https://www.masterresource.org/electric-vehicles/energy-usage-cost-gasoline-vs-electric/.
I was just at the Ford place wishing for a King Ranch 4X4. But I wonder if the rate of increasing rim size to decreasing tire height will have them on the ground. Even the Navigators, not good for us curb jumpers. Any predictions?
Well ……that is how you increase the bottom line …sell more tires !
If you are lucky you may get 25K miles on a set of that style of tires ….
Low profile tires on large diameter rims offer better handling of cool fast cars I can’t afford. My 2001 Mustang GT looks fine with the 17″ tires and replacements cost about $230 CAN. Move up to 18″ rims and tire prices move up a lot. Big rims on trucks just looks odd to me but I am old and remember 12″ rims on my terrific Ford Fiesta my first car….not much bigger than the donuts we made in the family bakeshop!
My sons were all petrolheads (no daughters) and loved those wheels and low profile tyres. I used to tell them that wagon wheels went out with the stagecoach, and for good reason; who wants the teeth shaken out of their head on UK roads?
Why did you care to fake a rebuttal, when you could easily find some blog post in some EV-promoting site all to the glory of the wonderful rise?
I DDGed “electric vehicle increase sales” and got the following:
U.S. Electric Vehicle Sales Soared In 2016 –
Forbes
Electric Car Sales Increased 42% Globally In Q1 2016 …
cleantechnica.com
Electric Vehicle Sales In Canada, November 2017
Canadian plug-in electric vehicle sales in November totaled 1,938, that’s an impressive 51% increase over November of 2016.
http://www.fleetcarma.com]
Sales of electric cars rise by 120% in a year
Sales of electric cars rise by 120% in a year: More than 45,000 plug-in and hybrid vehicles are now on the road. … a 120 per cent increase
http://www.dailymail.co.uk
etc.
But… then I would feel compelled to rebut all of those articles… 😎
Does that number count the Teslas that have committed suicide?
Why sure, they are not just still on the road, they’re still all over the road
I was taught that when extrapolating you should never, never, go beyond the range of historic data. A good rule of thumb being one year of extrapolation for every seven years of history.
How is that satirical?
use seven year of extrapolation for every year of history.
“never, never” is a double negative and hence allows extrapolation. Otherwise he’d say “never, ever” and stay inside the lines.
Extrapolation by DEFINITION is going beyond historic data. Otherwise, it’s an INTERPOLATION.
He said “range of historical data”, which I took to mean the length of it.
IE, if you have seven years of historical data, it doesn’t make sense to extrapolate that 20 years into the future.
Climate models originally extrapolated the 1970 to 1990 CO2 to temperature correlation out to 2100; so a bit over 5 times the historic data.
It appears the correlation is not holding up – point taken.
Same here. The prof in linear estimation and hypothesis testing admonished us to not extrapolate. Awful awful quite unlawful according to the Mystical Statistical Court of Appeals. But that was back when we used Monroe mechanical calculators. With the pocket calculator with statistical functions, and lately with the computer, the limits of data are only a challenge, not an admonishment. You ought to see what I can do with nonlinear extrapolation of log-transformed data.
Hmm…. I thought of max speeds, and guessed that the top speed of a car in 1910 was about 10mph, while one in 1980 could do about 100mph. Linear extrapolation suggests that the top speed of cars today is about 160mph – which isn’t too far off.
Aircraft, now, would be doing silly speeds….
Yes but the 10 in 1910 should be related to the 50 mph in 1920 or 4mph/yr thus in a 100 years nowish 410 mph that is the silly analog. As per the EV discussion.
Mercer Type 35R Raceabout
The result was one of the most admired sports cars of the decade; the 1910 Type-35R Raceabout, a stripped-down, two-seat speedster, designed to be “safely and consistently” driven at over 70 mph (110 km/h). It was capable of over 90 mph (140 km/h).[citation needed] The Raceabout’s inline 4-cylinder T-head engine displaced 293 cubic inches (4,800 cc) and developed 55 horsepower (41 kW) at 1,650 revolutions per minute.[4] It won five of the six 1911 races it was entered in, losing only the first Indianapolis 500.[1] Hundreds of racing victories followed.[citation needed] The Raceabout became one of the premier racing thoroughbreds of the era- highly coveted for its quality construction and exceptional handling.[citation needed]
It’s amazing what you can do with”Numbers”
If you want a meaningful comparison you should look at all the CO₂ emissions that have been prevented by all the EV sold, versus what we would have emitted if they were ICE-vehicles.
…Oh, forget it! It is probably a too small or even negative number.
Saving the world one EV at a time. Blessed are the simpletons: for they shall inherit the earth.
I think you mean, they shall reap the whirlwind.
You would have to take into account the reduction in CO2 per mile for ICE vehicles due to improved technology during the period EVs have been available, 1997 for Prius and 1999 for Honda Insight (1st generation 17K sold)
Most Tesla owners i Norway also has (at least) one other car (Typically BMW X5, Audi Q7 or similar…). They use the Tesla to avoid paying toll/road tax…. (And some virtue signalling of course!)
Your calculations are off by an order of magnitude.
By properly adjusting and correcting the raw data, EV sales will not be a paltry 12% of vehicle sales, but will be an astonishing 120% of all sales.
You did not properly homogenize the data. In addition, to really get things hot you should Pasteurize the data as well.
Glad I could help.
Now that’s funny!
BradW
I was, momentarily suckered.
And yes, when I recovered, it was very funny.
For pure entertainment, keep an eye on the EV market in the UK. My understanding is that new petrol and diesel vehicle sales will be banned starting in 2040 (for you youngsters, twenty-two years is NOT that long of a period! My oldest car is twenty-one years old and still regularly driven.). So what are they doing to prepare for this? No new fossil-fueled power plants. No new nukes. No reinforcement of the electrical grid. No planned roll-out of charging stations. But they are building more wind and solar facilities, installing smart-meters in every residence, and….raising the price of electricity. The smart-meters will allow them to automate rationing of power as needed, or to have variable time-of-day/day-of-week rates, though they are being sold as a convenience to customers.
As we get closer to the date, it will be interesting to see what happens when the average person realizes private car ownership will be beyond their economic ability.
British politicians are astonishingly innumerate and ignorant of engineering principles. Most of them couldn’t run a sweet shop.
@ Graemethecat: British politicians are astonishingly ignorant!
Fixed it for you, you’re welcome 😉
@Eugene: Politicians are astonishingly ignorant!
Fixed it for you.
The 2040 solution just may be fusion! Lockheed certainly seems to think so.
Fusion makes me think of this scene from Monty Python and the Holy Grail…
https://youtu.be/fFufoOgCMW8
To infinite energy and beyond!
https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/products/compact-fusion.html
https://youtu.be/UlYClniDFkM
Sorry, there is only 22 years to 2040, we need 30 more years.
Lockheed just was awarded their patent on their magnetic bottle design. The patent expires in 2039. If they haven’t made mega bucks from fusion between now and then, they killed goose before it even started laying golden eggs.
Seriously, a patent only makes sense if they can commercialize in the next decade or so.
Or if you think someone else is going to try to.
They can also extend the patent by making small improvements to the design every decade or so and applying for a new patent.
I envisage the moderately literate few who survive post-modern education who’ve managed to find a dusty chemistry book in an attic somewhere (future: teaching chemistry is bad, because people could learn to make stuff go bang) will build gassifiers, hook them up to old generators and burn whatever garbage they can scrounge to charge their spark-cars. Of course the Department For Keeping an Eye on Neighbors will have their Stasi out checking for signs of intelligence so probably best to wear a helmet with a dent in it and a yellow backpack at all times to throw them off. Optional, clip on name tag with ‘Hi, I’m Kevin’ might help too. Good luck Britain
Serfs don’t need a private automobile.
jtom – the problem in the UK isnt grid capacity. It is cell manufacturing capacity. Just to elecrify Jaguars output wod take the equivalent of several Tesla gigafactories.
For the record I am an EV enthusiast but do not approve of government meddling in markets or frigging around reducing CO2 output. My concern is the survival of the auto industry in the west
But what about hybrid vehicles? You know …the (partly) electric vehicle that you purchase because you aren’t really sure if electric is all it’s cracked up to be and you want fossil fuels for backup? (Where have I heard that before…?)
People have personal transportation because it’s convenient, saves time, and they can afford it. When EVs meet all that criteria they will start selling more because from a personal transportation perspective they are superior to ICE cars. The 1% that buy them now, the low hanging fruit, have commutes that fall within EV range, a house with a garage that they can plug them into overnight to charge, and the extra money(above ICE cars) to buy them. Some feel they are making an environmental statement. If everyone were forced to buy and use EVs within the next decade our economy and living standards would collapse due to lack of charging infrastructure, ability to afford, and range limitations. I think that’s part of the plan to force people into high density vertical living using mass transportation. Read Agenda 21, it’s no conspiracy theory.
Look at it this way : Tesla is selling every single Model 3 they can make and has a 450,000 waiting list. Ditto for their Model S and Model Y, which outsell each and every price competitive ICE model from Mercedes, BMW, Cadillac, etc. GM is not only selling every Chevy Bolt electric they can make but all has thousands on waiting lists in Europe for the Ampere version. I assume that the new Nissan Leaf with a (finally) decent battery, will sell just about all they can build. The main reason electric cars are not selling vast numbers is 1) there aren’t but a few models to choose from and 2) the numbers being produced by the automakers are not yet huge (that will come) 30 the prices are still only down to the mid, upper mid level price range (that will come down in the near future,according to GM). Automakers are developing and will put into their showrooms over 120 electric models over the next few years. Porsche, VW, European Ford, Daimler are , along with others, building out a super fast recharging network, before any EVs are on the road that can take advantage of them (like the Porsche Mission e, others). Porsche is talking of a Mission e variant with a 150kWhr battery, good for close to 600 miles of driving range, and the ability to add 250 miles of range in 15 minutes of recharging. Only battery prices keep the prices of the EVs higher than ICE versions, but the differences have narrowed significantly. No ICE powered auto can compete, part or part with an electric in terms of low fuel costs, low or no maintenance costs,
acceleration (even the modest Chevy Bolt SUV can outran most gas powered cars) – the upcoming Buick version will run to 60 MPH in 4 seconds. Battery packs should outlast the car – over 15 years.
Data shows that Tesla battery packs have average only a 10% degradation over 160,000 miles. Tesla will warrantee theelectric motors in their semi for a million miles. Electrics are easy to repair and far less complicated than a gas powered drivetrain. It shouldbe patently clear that electrics are the future and the reasons have little to do with emissions.
Actually, they are the future ONLY if emission are NOT taken into consideration.
The reason is, EV need ~twice as much energy to be build (because of the battery is very energy intensive), while consuming equal or more energy in use. So they consume more energy overall.
EV may make some sense in cities. Not even sure. But not as a solution to save energy or save environement
Oh goody, I can’t wait till we start ripping more of the earth open for all that lithium.
“Data shows that Tesla battery packs have average only a 10% degradation over 160,000 miles”.
How many Teslas have traveled 160,000 miles? and how could “they” average that?
That’s the cumulative total of all Teslas maybe…
also the used batteries can be put to use as cheap grid storage.
So batteries that have no storage capacity left, can be used as cheap grid storage.
About as practical as renewable energy over all.
MarkW: I was curious how the dead batteries helped, but I thought maybe it was just one of those “blonde” moments…..
Where is your evidence that used batteries have no charging capacity at all? The newer models are holding 94% after 50,000 miles and projected to hold 90% after 100,000 miles. Even if the figure is only 75% by the time the battery gets swapped out of the car, that’s plenty to make it useful for grid storage, where space and weight are not issues. https://www.csmonitor.com/Business/In-Gear/2015/0219/How-much-will-Tesla-Model-S-battery-life-decrease-over-time
Chris, this is simple enough that even an alarmist such as yourself should be able to get it.
People don’t get rid of their batteries until they are near the end of their life.
If you treat a lithium battery right, it will last for 2,000 cycles before dropping below 70% of its original capacity. Treating right means mainly two things: a) don’t habitually let the state of charge drop below 20%, and b) don’t “top it off” from a high state of charge to 100% full. The manufacturers will vary in their instructions, but people who know more than I do reliably inform me that I can recharge my Think City to 100% as long as I don’t let it go below about 20% on any kind of regular basis.
I keep records, as people who have read my comments might imagine. My average state of charge before refilling has been 29% when calculated from the meter I use (ironically, the brand name is “Watts Up”), and 21% by eyeballing the gauge in the car. Average miles driven between charges have been 56, and average range to empty has been 78. Therefore, the battery in my Think City should last for 110,000 miles before hitting 70% of capacity, which is the generally-agreed kaput standard.
Trust me: That car will not structurally survive 110,000 miles. The new Chevy Bolt has a 60 kWh battery, which is 2.5x the size of my Think’s battery. Therefore, a Bolt battery, treated right, can be expected to last at leastr 275,000 miles. The EVs to watch out for on battery life are used ones, because you don’t know how they’ve been treated. (By the way, out here in the countryside, something similar applies to buying a used ATV or UTV. Owners generally beat them up something fierce, so the word is to buy a new one if you can. Tractors, on the other hand, can more often be bought used.)
The riskiest is to buy a previously-leased EV. The lessor has no incentive to treat the battery right. Nissan learned that with its first leases of LEAFs. I would be extremely reluctant to buy a LEAF coming off of lease.
Arthur, permit me to ask you a question if I may: Would you feel comfortable driving an EV on a loooong distance trip away from home (say halfway across the country) knowing that a recharging infrastructure for the EV is not readily available in most areas?
I know I would not, and I doubt that I am alone. Regardless of how glowing you feel the future of EVs might be, the recharging time (compared to a 4-5 minute fill up at a gas station for an ICE car) and the time and cost for installing a nationwide recharging infrastructure are still serious impediments for EVs.
Evacuating a city under a hurricane threat when all the power is out would be great fun.
I have been thoroughly castigated by Tesloids for telling them that it’s not a road trip car. They talk about the netwok of “superchargers,” and I laugh.
For starters, the “superchargers” are strung along main roads. It’s not a road trip — for me, anyway — if I am limited to main roads. This is America, and I inherited the road trip gene from my father. I have drive >350,000 miles in all 50 states and 10 European countries. When I take a road trip in the U.S., I go to out there, well beyond the reach of any “supercharger” network. I go to places where even 240v circuits might be hard to find. One of my favorites is a spot in SE Oregon that is farther away from an Interstate highway than any spot in the continental United States, and 70 miles miles from the nearest gas station.
Even if “superchargers” were everywhere — which they will not be — it wouldn’t help much. A Tesla will add roughly 6 miles of range per minute at a “supercharger.” My Ram 3500 will add 80 miles per minute at the diesel pump. A car comparable in size to a Tesla Model S will add 150 miles of range per minute.
If you drive a Tesla Model S and use the “superchargers,” you will recharge about every 175 miles or so. You will spend roughly one-sixth of your drive time sitting there recharging it. And that’s if there are no lines at the charger. And you’d better hope the charger is close to your route, or it’ll be even more inconvenient. When I point all this out to the Tesloids, they actually make a virtue out of stopping so often and cooling their heels for 45 minutes at a time.
I’ve made plenty of pro-EV comments here, but I am very far from an EVangelist. I think the latest battery-only EVs, at their current state of development, are well-suited for urban use. But for road trips? No way. People who own one car should own either an ICE version or a PHEV. The only way battery-only EVs will be true road trip cars is if batteries hold much, much more of a charge than today’s, at a considerably lower cost/kWh.
This is why, as a qualified supporter of EVs, I concentrate my advocacy on PHEVs.
Don’t take your EV here:
arthur4563: I agree
“Look at it this way : Tesla is selling every single Model 3 they can make and has a 450,000 waiting list. …”
That could be because despite having 450,000 orders on the books they have only managed to build about 18,000 in about a year, although they have reportedly finally exceeded their 2500/wk goal. Unfortunately, they accomplished this milestone by basically abandoning most of Musk’s highly automated production system which supposedly would be moving so fast that he had his engineers looking for ways to cut down aerodynamic drag on the line. Of course, the whole thing was shut down again this week to prepare for Elon’s new goal of 6000/wk. I don’t think I’ll be holding my breath for that one either and I certainly hope those 450,000 optimists aren’t holding theirs.
It’s funny, Arthur…for all of this alleged demand, you’ll have a hard time finding cars that depreciates faster than the Model S. One example I know of is the Nissan Leaf. Chevy Volt is notorious as well. Bolt is projected to follow in its footsteps.
Oh, and this one made me chuckle:
“…Electrics are easy to repair…”
Yeah, so easy that you have to get towed to a dealership with minor problems because of the risk of explosion of trying to fix anything yourself.
People complain enough about how hard it is to work on your own car anymore due to all of the dependence on electronics…and now vehicles even more dependent on electronics are going to be even easier to repair? How’s that? “Electrical system issue” is the most difficult to isolate and most feared repair diagnosis as well.
BTW, as far as the demand for Tesla vehicles goes…Tesla is a status symbol, and there are millions of Elon Musk fanboys. That luster will eventually go away. I’d also bet dollars to donuts that if Elon Musk announced an all-gas vehicle, he’d have an overwhelming demand and back-order as well.
Can’t you just pop into Radio Shack and pick up a repair kit? (/sarc… serious sarc)
What’s a Radio Shack?
I *am* old.
im puzzled as to why americans dont have a thriving LPG car bus n truck system going seeing as you have all that gas being fracked..
aussies have had either dual petrol/lpg cars trucks buses for well over 20yrs
an item i read pronounced how new and innovative gas trucks etc were in usa and work designing em etc was going
hell import the tech from Aus, or eu or anywhere we already sorted it.
however in Aus we used to pay 1,500k for a conversion
then the govt subsidised 1k so the price rose?? yup exactly 1k
now costs 2,5k to turn a plain petrol car to dual.
and the reason behing it all to begin with was cheap lpg
even with lower economy it was still better
then once enough were using it..the price tripled! my rural towns lpg is now 98c
petrol rising sharply at 1.39c a litre this week
I’m old enough to remember buying individual resistors and capacitors at Radio Shack.
Also building test meters from HeathKit.
EVs will have lower repair costs — Tesla notwithstanding — because electric motors are much simpler than gas or diesel engines. And no oil changes, transmissions, or exhaust systems. I think one reason for the main auto industry’s reluctance to become more electrified might be dealer resistance.
Service intervals are going to be far longer for EVs once the designs become more mature, and more of them are made by car companies as opposed to Elon the Rodeo Clown.
If we extend the rebates and tax incentives to their logical conclusion, all sales will be EVs.
Yes, the EVs will just be given away. And when the batteries won’t charge anymore, we can hand them in & get the old “cash for clunker” rebate.
In Georgia they basically were for a couple years. You could get a 3-year lease for a new Leaf as an example and the tax credit 100% covered the lease payments. At that time Georgia was a huge number of EVs sold. Second only to California. That’s a big reason why the used value is so low. No tax credit on used EVs.
doesn’t seem fair to me to exclude electric golf cart and the like in such rebuttal.
Satire isn’t supposed to be fair… 😉
Now you’re just being mean. ;*)
We should be forced to check of a green or not green square (like organ donor) on our Driver’s License.
This one piece of information would be publicaly tied to your name.
There after you would:
1.) Pay the full prorated price for green subsidies and associated higher cost of electric, at 100% of your usage, even if your area can’t provide that amount of green electric.
2.) Be required on your IRS tax form pay a fossil penalty if you haven’t purchased an EV car
(just like the health plan penalty)
3.) You have to pay the ‘social cost of rare earth metals’ extraction and recovery. You can either buy RE credits or invest in RE mining and reclamation.
4.) You have to sign up for a fully separable-mulit-path recycling garbage hauler that separates, plastics, glass, batteries, compost, clean office papers and clean cardboard, all metals and electronics So you must have 8 different colored bins by your house.
5.) You are not allowed to use natural-gas in your home otherwize, again a fossil fuel penalty/
6.) Lastly, any property you own, you must install rooftop solar AND keep if functional for the full time you own the property.
Don’t forget the “breath meter” installed on you to determine your CO2 breath-tax.
Alcohol will mask the CO2.
Gotta love Google Ads. Last week this add popped up while I was reading Eric’s post on repealing fuel economy standards…
And today, this ad popped up in this thread…
It’s almost as if Google knows me… 😉
“At this blistering pace, EV’s are on track to claiming a 13% market share by the end of the 21st century!”
Just in time for global warming to arrive. Hurray!
To EV or not to EV, is that really a question?
yup yup yup! Friends of mine have little beep-beeps and smugly talk carbon footprints, so I enjoy driving my 383 or 440 Plymouth Fury along to family events and explain to them I’m feeding the plants. Note, in Oz such cars aren’t the norm.. What cheers me is despite the supposed ‘thoughts’ (parroted sound bites) re ‘globull warming’ , they all fall about the cars and stare at them longingly. Indeed, last Christmas the family knees up saw everyone sitting on the front lawn in a circle around the beast, with ongoing requests for me to start it so they could feel the ground shaking
We live in good times 🙂
But but but … NOBODY “needs” to go that fast. Says my eco-Leftist totalitarian neighbors who would prefer I own an EV …
And nobody needs to live in anything but a small cave. But aspiring to achieve other things that we enjoy makes us human and life worth living. Of course that takes work and effort. I truly believe that many jump on board the socialist train in the hopes that if everyone suffers equally they will not have to expend any effort to compete with others and will have a built in excuse for their lot in life. When I used to interview candidates for a sales position I would ask “do yo love to win or hate to lose?” The only correct answer is “love to win” because those people will do what it takes to be successful and then enjoy the results. The “hate to lose” people would be in such fear of failure that they would often not even bother to take up the challenge. I believe that applies to so many people today, especially those that want everyone to be equal by decree.
…except for the “long til pipe”.
Maybe they’ll start plotting ev sales using anomalies, as with temperatures
Within 30 years, we will be awash with electricity and He, as new fusion plants will be rolled out. EVs lightened up with balloons will help solve this excess capacity problem.
Yes, and it only took $10,000 per vehicle in subsidies. just think waht we could do with $20,000.
If I lived in a warm climate urban environment . . . but I don’t.
I’ve never owned a Ford 150. Does a F350 count?
We also have a 1980 Chevy PU — the gas tank issue killed its trade-in/resale value, so use if for hauling and pulling stumps or logs. The F350 is newer and bought for a puller in case we get chased out by wildfire and have to live in a 28′ trailer for awhile. To get out of our part of the world there are hills, usually 10 miles down and then 10 miles up the other side. I think getting into Oregon, the hill is 23 miles with just one short horizontal spot.
Our go to town cars are Subarus — about 500 miles on a tank of gas.
“Renewable / electric everything” is promoted by the believers just like Communism was (is) by its disciples. All that is needed is for us all to convert and all the problems would go away.
This what concerns me the most.
In the U.K. the public hasn’t woken up to the fact that the suicidal Climate Change Act intends to stop gas (the stuff in pipes to people’s homes) for domestic heating and cooking within 30 years, putting a whole industry and hundreds of thousands of people out of work. EVs are the least of our problems. Although I look forward to the punch ups as angry EV drivers fight each over the handful of charge points – much of the rural U.K. still hasn’t got decent broadband speeds decades after the internet was thought up. You think these idiots are going to manage a national charge point programme? Most of our politicians have such a shallow grasp of reality that pond scum couldn’t survive in their thought processes.
Ohhh! I like that line about politician’s shallow grasp of reality. Are you sure you’re only moderately cross? If so, God help us all if you ever get into a towering rage.
I’ll happily accept your apoplexy health warning, but sometimes the stupidity of the whole climate scam leads me and no doubt many others to say things we perhaps shouldn’t. But what really angers me is the cynicism of misspending trillions on a false “crisis” when real problems which can be tackled effectively abound. You either have to laugh or cry at the scandalous waste and ruined lives. And there seems no be no end in sight.
@ JustAnOldGuy: you should see him when he’s somewhat miffed!! ;¬)
A comparison of EV car sales to all light vehicle sales is b.s., because batteries haven’tr reached the state of development in which they are practical for light trucks. Maybe it’ll happen in the future, but it’s not happening now. An accurate comparison is cars to cars, even though cars are now only about one-third of U.S. light vehicle sales.
1Q18 car sales were 11% below 1Q17 car sales, but both battery EV (“BEV”) and plug-in hybrid (“PHEV”) sales rose by 32% in 1Q18 compared with 1Q17. By a fair measurement, the sales of cars with batteries and rockin’ and rollin’, and that’s before Tesla’s benighted Model 3 really kicks in — if it ever does, which I’ve doubted for quite a while that it would.
Even if you make the unfair comparison, U.S. light vehicle sales were up only 2% in 1Q18 relative to 1Q17 (4,196,510 v 4,103,000), while sales of cars with batteries rose by 32%. A comparison of cars with all light vehicles is ridiculous enough, but comparing them to Ford’s F-150 is a specious and laughable example of cherry-picking.
I own both an EV (bought out of curiosity at a 56% discount) and a Ram 3500 pickup. I like ’em both for different reasons, but I like the Ram a whole lot more. Among other things, my EV charges at 0.6 miles of added range per minute, while my Ram at 16 mpg adds 80 miles of range per minute at the gas pump. The EV is not even remotely a road-trip vehicle, and neither (IMO) are any of the BEVs, including the Teslas charged at so-called “superchargers.”
Everything I’ve cited are facts sourced partly from EV sales data, part from vehicle sales data, and part from direct personal observation. In these divided, ideology-mongering times, both the EVangelists and the anti-EV types here at Wattsupwiththat are disappointingly resistant to facts, and do their best to deny them.
EVs are not the Solution to the World’s Problems, as the virtue-mongers constantly tell us. But it is also a fact that battery power is at least twice as efficient as diesel and gasoline power at the current mix of U.S. electricity generation. I favor ongoing subsidies for this reason, but would redirect them away from luxury sleds toward popular-priced cars, and would gradually withdraw those subsidies as battery costs fall with scale economies and ongoing technical improvements.
The Anthropogenic Global Warming fraud, er, hypothesis, has nothing whatsoever to do with my thinking. The “concern” with CO2 emissions is, in my view, the product of academic group-think, broken models, invalid statistics, altered temperature records, badly designed research, a “progressive” lust for higher taxation and income redistribution. I reject all of that, but if you can at least double the fuel efficiency of cars, I think gov’t financial encouragement — properly directed — is solidly within the American tradition.
In the end, facts win. If ignored, as both the EVangelists and — sadly — a significant cohort on this site are wont to do, the result is waste and a diminished standard of living. If so-called “conservatives,” many of whom are just as extreme as the “progressives,” manage to kill the uptake of battery powered transportation in the United States, I think they will a) fail to stop battery advances, and b) reduce the growth of our standard of living.
It’s sad to see outright cherry-picking propaganda here. It’s an understandable reaction to the outrageous stupidity of the AGW crowd, but: Two wrongs don’t make a right. Good luck with your jihad, but jihads tend not to pan out over time.
That’s how David Middleton rolls when it comes to EVs, He has always made the comparison to F Series trucks, and not cars, which would be the logical comparison.
Which of the top 20 selling vehicles should I be comparing EV’s to?
There’s a reason why 14 of the top 20 vehicles are pickup trucks or SUV’s and 16 of the top 20 outsell all EV’s combined… Consumers choose them.
But, if you can think of another vehicle that would have more satirical value as a benchmark, please let me know.
You should compare cars to cars. As of 1Q18, EVs are 4% of the U.S. car market, up from 2.8% in 1Q17. I have a very long personal and professional background with numbers and statistics. Yep, I fully realize that we’re talking about changes from a small base, but the increase is substantial. It occurred with no change in the subsidy regime; if buyers didn’t want EVs, there’d have been no increase. But the fact is that they are becoming more popular.
One of the major strengths of Wattsupwiththat is that it has been, in my multi-year experience here, much more factual than the AGW shysters. This is why you’re getting so much pushback from me. If you don’t like EVs, fine. If you don’t like subsidies, I respectfully disagree for the reasons I stated earlier. But you should not do any kind of limbo dance with facts, and that includes cherry-picking and putting the picture in a false light.
Look, you will not stop EVs, no matter how much you might want to. It’s above your pay grade. What you can do, however, is hold yourself to the standard that this site has so admirably upheld over the years. I think Wattsupwiththat is better than this, and someone ought to say so.
And cars are about 30% of the US automobile market because… consumers, the people who buy automobiles, prefer pickup trucks and SUV’s by about a 2:1 margin over “cars”… And 96% of “car” buyers have no use for EV’s.
EV’s are the automotive equivalent of Cook’s cooked 97% consensus.
The pie chart is a few months old, but the math hasn’t changed in a significant manner…
David M.,
I can’t find a ready information source, but you might use large farm tractors.
A few years ago the 100+ HP models sold at the rate of about 1,500 per month in the U. S.
That’s just one segment, used for reporting.
There must be a spreadsheet for multiple sizes but a quick search did not find it.
MarkW @ 4:20
Most recently I used my truck to pull a 38 ft. Ponderosa log from where it was unloaded to where I wanted it.
Also carried 40 sheets of 2’x12′ aluminum roofing about 60 miles.
A neighbor took out a concrete sidewalk and I carted off 1,000 pounds of it — more or less, we did not weigh it.
A bit further back I carried a dozen 8.5′ railroad ties home from a lumber yard. Those are soaked in preservative and so heavy I use levers to move them.
I’m sure an EV can be built to do these things.
Me?, I use a used truck.
“EV’s are the automotive equivalent of Cook’s cooked 97% consensus.’
Wrong. Keep jousting with windmills and stay in denial. The trends are clear. Battery prices/kw declined by 24% in 2016 alone, and estimates are that prices in 2025 will be 1/2 what they are today. Carmarkers are devoting 10s of billions to EVs – Mercedes, for example, will have EV versions of all of their key car models by 2022. The Chinese government is pushing EVs, so if US mfrs want to sell cars in China, they’ll need to have EV offerings or get shut out. Europe is making the same push. So US mfrs, who make car platforms to sell globally, will need to move towards EVs. And as the range problem goes away, which it already has to a large extent and will even more so by 2025, plus more charge points and faster charging, the reasons for ICEs will disappear. For heavy payload requirement vehicles like trucks, it will happen more slowly, but it will happen. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-05/latest-bull-case-for-electric-cars-the-cheapest-batteries-ever
EV’s are the automotive equivalent of Cook’s cooked 97% consensus, because we’re not supposed to count 2/3 of automobile sales when assessing the market penetration of EV’s.
Why are three of the four top-selling automobile models pickup trucks? Because consumers need pickup trucks? Or because they want pickup trucks?
Why does the Jeep Wrangler outsell the sum total of EV’s in the US? Because it’s more practical? Or because consumers want Jeeps more than EV’s?
So what that the market share is low now, both in the car segment and overall? The price of EVs is coming down, the number of models available is going up, and the charge point and range issues are moving in the right direction. Your reaction is exactly what the horse and buggy community said in the early days of the automobile. Now, if battery prices were not coming down, and if Europe and China were not pushing for EVs, the growth projections for EVs would not be so robust. But these things are happening.
It’s volume that matters, not what the individual vehicle is used for.
The reality remains is that even though they are heavily subsidized, both before and long after the purchase, few people want them.
I don’t think you will find a single Conservative who wants to kill EVs. What we want to kill are the SUBSIDIES for EVs, and let marketplace competition, not government, determine the winners and losers.
I will ridicule EVs till the cows come home, but I would never seek to ban them. If you want to waster your own money, that’s your problem.
I also laugh at people who buy BIG pick-ups, but never haul anything in the bed and never take them off-road.
However, once again, as long as it’s their money, it’s their choice.
Yeah… but big pickups are cool!
https://youtu.be/IAKFt7akziA
As it concerns big pickups, my Ram 3500 was probably the most thoroughly researched personal purchase of my life. I spent three years renting trucks of various sizes and configurations, and talking to people who know more than I do about them.
Pickup trucks fall into several categories. One is “full size” vs. “mid-size” and “compact.” The F series (150 through 450), GM (1500 through 3500), and Ram (1500 through 3500) are all full-size. If you want to ridicule them, I’d suggest ridiculing the F 150, which derives a great deal of its use as a suburban grocery-getter. I could elaborate, but I would feel somewhat petty to go through the list.
The second major division would be within the full-size category, between “light duty” (150/1500) and “heavy-duty” (everything higher.) This division is something of a misnomer, because even what are sold as “heavy-duty” pickups are in reality classified in the industry as “light trucks,” but bear with me. “Heavy duty” pickups have two major uses: towing and hauling. A 250/2500 is optimized for towing, typically of boats and RVs. A 350/3500 (and in Ford’s case, also a 450) will tow just as well as a 250/2500, but will haul considerably heavier loads. I use mine to haul rocks. Not all the time, but enough to matter.
Also, “heavy duty” pickups are considerably sturdier than “light duty” trucks. All of the components last longer. Even if you didn’t haul or tow relatively heavy loads, if you live in the countryside and travel rutted roads — which I commonly do — it makes sense to get a “heavy duty” pickup, because a “light duty” pickup will deteriorate rapidly after about 75,000 miles if commonly driven on rough country roads — or if used to haul or tow heavy loads even on smooth pavement.
None of this has much application to Europe, but it matters in the United States, especially in the countryside. If I weren’t hauling heavy stuff, or if I lived in the city, but wanted a pickup, I wouldn’t have a “full-size” pickup to begin with. In fact, when I did live in the city, the pickup I owned was a “compact,” and I was very satisfied with it. But when I moved to the countryside, it became apparent that a full-size, heavy-duty truck made the most sense.
Again, if you want to laugh at outsized American pickups, laugh at the F-150, and maybe some of the most recent tricked-out Ram 1500s. But not so much at the “heavy duty” pickups.
The problem with 3500’s or 350’s, particularly dualies, is maneuvering through parking garages… 😎
Absolutely true about parking garages. I bought the Ram 3500 while still living in the city, but when I knew I’d be leaving. I am about to turn over 60,000 miles in 4-1/2 years of ownership, and have not once stuck it in a parking garage. Not just the length, but the height. Mine is almost 8 feet tall, and a whole lot of parking garages won’t fit anything taller than 6-1/2 feet.
On a recent trip through the U.K., where I drove 1,000 miles, I saw one — count ’em, one — full-sized pickup. The roads there are too narrow. You’d pretty much have to be nuts to own a full-sized pickup there, even if you were willing to put up with the regulations that tax people through the nose for having one.
The roads in the UK are barely wide enough for compact cars. Back in 2006, we rented a Volvo S60. Nice car… glad we took out the maximum insurance… I think I hit every curb in Bath.
That goes double for trucks with snorkles, but without a spec of mud on them.
Mr. Jake J Friday (Joe’s cousin?),
As one of those so-called “extremist conservatives”, perhaps you would be so kind as to explain to me the “facts” as to why you should have the right to stick a gun in my face, reach into my wallet, and take from me the money to buy you a car. I do not see how this increases my standard of living.
I couldn’t care less about whether EVs succeed or fail. EVs hold zero value to me, but I am not looking to stop you or anyone else from putting your money down and getting a product you desire. What I care greatly about, is when someone demands that I pay for or purchase a product not of my choosing with force. This I, and others clearly, resist. We resist all justifications for putting your hand in our pockets, whether it be AGW & CO2, “efficiency facts”, or any other excuse proffered. We use satire, sarcasm, personal experiences, and even the occasional fact in an effort to persuade you, merely, to let our wallets go.
Should the day come that the issues of storing electricity cease to be, I’m sure that EVs will come to dominate transportation and ICE vehicles will be reduced to collector and enthusiast machines. Until that day arrives, however, EV’s will never be more than a niche market, barring command interference. At this point they require too many compromises for most people over ICE vehicles.
In closing, I found your use of jihad amusing. I think you need to re-evaluate your facts. There is only one side attempting conversion by the sword, and you have it exactly backwards
Apparently some people are so unsure of themselves and the positions that they have adopted, that they over react to any criticism of their chosen lifestyle.
Often to the point of wishing it banned.
I’ve made the case for subsidizing electric personal transportation. I don’t see the need to make the rubble bounce again. Rail against subsidies if you want, and at times I will even agree. (For example, I am skeptical of the “net metering” subsidy for solar panels, and am on the local s-list around here among the panel pushers as a result.) But please rant factually, as opposed to blatantly misrepresenting sales data.
You have argued that your personal choices deserve to be funded with other people’s money.
Claiming that you have actually made the case is a HUUUUGGGE stretch.
Nobody has mis-represented anything, though you often get pretty close. (Assuming you ever do come up with the data to back up your outrageous claims.)
MarkW said: “You have argued that your personal choices deserve to be funded with other people’s money.”
And other people are paying for your ICE choices, in the form of higher health care costs. https://www.wired.com/2016/10/not-just-clean-air-electric-cars-can-save-us-billions/
So you know, I didn’t take the EV tax credit because I personally object to getting the subsidy. I’m well off and don’t need the money. Similarly, when I lived in Seattle, I declined to purchase solar parels for a south-facing roof because I thought the outrageous subsidy — which would’ve made them not just viable but quite profitable for me — would be unethical.
I’ve told very few people about either of those decisions, because I truly despise vitrue mongering even if some virtue is involved. Yep, it’s contradictory, because I have supported some of these subsidies in general. Gotta stand and face it, life is so complicated.
Chris, is there any lie that you won’t believe?
MarkW, for once in your time on WUWT – you know, your 25,000+ posts – can you provide a link supporting your claim? You toss out one liner claims with an air of certainty, then fail to back it up with evidence. Every. Single. Time.
I am rating for David to compare sales of 32 foot and bigger RVs to EVs.
Many have the same cummins diesel engines as the Dodge Ram. When I look for engine parts, I often look for things to fit the Dodge. Just ordered a pressure gauge. The difference is I will be installing it under the bed instead of under the hood.
It is important to note that you can tow your EV with your Ram.
No really!!! I just read the ‘virtues’ of solar by an RV owner that put enough PV on his RV roof to charge his EV that he tows.
Kit… Gimme a good RV sales data source… sounds like a fun exercise.
Speaking of a Ram and an EV …
A spare car… 🤣
David Middleton, in the earlier thread I posted a link to a highly reliable EV sales source.
Inside EV’s is a reliable EV source… I’m looking for a reliable RV source
A little bit smaller, and it would fit in the bed.
Solar on RVs is at least 20 years old.
Jake J, I have one for you to ponder. Right now our roads are paid for by gasoline tax. The tax has been around for decades. One of the problems governments are having is how to pay for roads if everyone did go the EVs. And, I know of no conservative that has made any attempt to stop battery advancement especially if it is a good investment. There in lies the problem without a significant breakthrough we will continue down the incremental road for battery technological development and “rediscovering” old technologies.
If EV’s were as cheap and efficient as some here claim, why does the government have to pay people to buy them?
In the U.S., the mileage tax concept is gaining steam. Which I don’t like, by the way.
The State of Washington is doing a study of 5 different ways of getting fees from EV road users.
Studies and roll-out may take 5 years.
In the meantime, WA raised gas taxes.
I note, so far with amusement, a continual repair of guardrails. Maybe insurance pays that bill.
However, planning, labor, and construction costs do not stop going up. Taxes and/or fees have to go up also.
Beware the Black Box tracking device.
WA State charges a flat $150 a year to EV owners, which is blatantly discriminatory against EVs. There should be a fee, but at an average of 9,000 miles a year driven, it should be no more than about $50.
But you missing the point, all these government hand outs, are not crumbs.
By the way, I don’t care about CO2, but because I tend strongly toward numbers-nerdism, I did once look at it. At the current U.S. electrical generation mix, an EV emits (at the power plant) roughly 60% of the CO2 per mile driven, relative to petroleum-powered vehicles. Again, this is absolutely not why I favor ongoing gov’t encouragement of battery powered personal transportation. But it’s a fact, and since CO2 is a big subject here, it’s worth pointing out in passing.
The future is a scary thing.
Lets not go there.
I will raise again and again the problem of charging these gems by the vast majority of people who do not have a garage or driveway.
Will just one proponent of EV’s give a solution to this issue.
It’s false that the vast majority of EV owners do not have a garage or driveway.
False comparison. Who would buy an EV if they didn’t have a garage to charge it in.
An accurate comparison, if you would ever care to make one, is with the entire population, which is what was done.
MarkW, you’re wrong and so is Dackombe – who, I noticed, provided zero evidence for his claim that “the vast majority of people who do not have a garage or driveway.” You didn’t provide any supporting evidence either.
A phrase like “vast majority” implies at least 70%, if not higher. The actual figure is 37% – meaning that 63% of all Americans do have a carport or garage. https://www.energy.gov/eere/vehicles/fact-958-january-2-2017-sixty-three-percent-all-housing-units-have-garage-or-carport
Dackombe: A fair question. I can’t answer for the US but in the UK, a lot of folk have driveways or somewhere to park that is “theirs”. They will mostly charge overnight. The rest will fast charge. In the UK the average miles per day is 20-odd so with a 300 mile range it would only be needed every week or so. Battery swapping has been done but is unlikely to catch on in my view
John Hardy: Like Chris, you evade the question. Saying “a lot of folk” have something says nothing about the lot of folks who don’t. A lot of folk drive more than 20-odd and cold weather cuts into that range by how much? Does “EV enthusiast” stand for “Evasive”?
You could fast charge, if you want to replace the battery pack in less than half the time.
Chris: Nice try, but I noticed you changed “vast majority of people” to “vast majority of EV owners” So we’re still hoping to find just one proponent of EV’s who will answer Dackombe’s question.
Paul, I have provided evidence to prove my point. You, along with all the others who disagreed with me, provided exactly zero evidence to support your assertion.
Chris: Not sure which assertion you have in mind. What evidence do you need that you changed the quote?
When I talk to people about EVs, I always advise that if they don’t live in a single-family house or an apartment building with a charger, they should stick to ICE vehicles. Even Teslas are charged >90% of the time at their owners’ homes. Those so-called “superchargers” are a promotional gimmick, and nothing more. I further think that so-called “public charging” stations for non-Tesla EVs are mostly a joke. EVangelists don’t like that opinion, but the facts about EV charging support it.
When the U. S. Forest Service and the National Park system install charging at trailheads . . . etc.
From my home to Sunrise in Mt. Rainier NP is about 130 miles — up, down, up – repeat several times.
There, they are in the process of adding solar to replace diesel power, with the fuel having been trucked up to 6,400 feet from 70 miles away.
God save us from virtuous Seattleites, regardless of what they drive.
I have a drawer full of duff rechargeable batteries.
Why is the marketing for electric cars so focused on unmasculine people? I was shopping for a commuter car, I ended up with a gas powered Civic hatchback. My wife suggested a Prius, but if you are driving a Prius you are basically telling the world “I have no balls, and I don’t care who knows it”.
That’s your issue. it’s pretty laughable that you buy a car based on how others will judge you. But hey, to each his own.
I suspect a heck of a lot of people base their vehicle buying decisions,at least in part, on how they will be perceived. I know you won’t find a Prius in my garage, EVER!
That’s even worse than a car called “Doesnt’ Go”. English for No Va.
Do you mean the Pious?
I have a medical condition where ROTFLOL is literal since I can pass out by activating my vegas nerve. The first time I saw the movie from David clip I came to on the floor.
[The mods caution you against riding in similar older, four-cylinder model cars such as Pinto’s, AMC Ambassdors, Monza’s, VW’s, or the like. If a Vega will stress you out, your nerves may not take their acceleration either. .mod]
The Other Guys… A very raunchy, fracking hilarious movie… One of many reasons I am a Mark Wahlberg fan.
I’m a fan of any actor/actress who is smart enough to just shut up, when they are off screen.
The answer to your masculinity question is that, apart from the Tesla S and X models, EVs are a) compact cars, and b) tend to have quirky styling that appeals to the trendoids. This is why I stuck steer horns on my dinky EV. Someone needs to have a sense of humor. A whole lot of EV owners are far, far too pious about their electro-sleds.
The Tesla Model S P100D rocks. If I had $150k to blow on a toy, it would be a close 10th place to a Mercedes AMG G 63.
I used to own a 2004 VW Phaeton with a 12-cylinder engine. No way in hell would I have traded that sled for any Tesla. Same goes for the 1991 Mercedes 560SEL. Tesla’s Model S doesn’t hold a candle to either of them, in my opinion. And I absolutely hate that iPad or whatever it is in the middle of the front seat.
The P100D is a rocket in Ludicrous mode… unfortunately it’s a battery powered rocket. A very cool toy.
“Ludicrous” mode is aptly labeled, given the gear-grinding. This is what happens when cars aren’t made by car companies.
Car companies also consider welding to be an essential skill… but the P100D is still cool… If cars were Smart Phone App’s, Tesla would be the Apple of automakers… 😎
We are starting to see very steep discounts on the Model S in the used market. Anyone who owns one and thinks they’ll get a lot of money for it upon sale should seriously consider selling their sled right now, before their $100,000 car turns into a $10,000 pet rock.
Why don’t we get down to basics? There is no NEED for EV’s other than to satisfy the eco-demands made in the name of false claims. There is an abundance of fossil fuels including fracking gas that can reduce emissions (if that was a definite necessity) but there is little market demand for EV products other than ‘enforced’ sales by changes in legislation.
I can see the advantages of hybrid vehicles (use electromotive acceleration then ‘coast’ under fossil fuel and recharging) but PURE electric? Why?
The demands on infrastructure to support EV’s are orders of magnitude more than the cost of the products they will serve whilst we already HAVE the infrastructure for fossil fuel distribution.
Hybrid brings all the advantages of EV’s and none of the problems (charging stations etc).
Tesla missed the mark – took a step too far – and because they failed to capitalise on that they will go under.
I think Tesla will go under because they have never been a car company. Regardless of what fuel your car uses, I really think you should buy your car from a car company, not from a Silicon Valley computer merchant who, like all of those people, will blame all problems on “user error.”
Tesla won’t go under because the brand has value… but you nailed it: Tesla is not and never will be a car company.
When Musk’s house of cards collapses, he will find a merger partner.
I don’t think Tesla will find a merger partner. I think it’ll be unloaded for the salvage value, which won’t be very high. The industry types will view Tesla as having proved the concept and (pardon the pun) jump-started the market for lithium-ion car batteries. I’ve looked as closely as I could at Tesla, and I don’t see any secret sauce there.
Musk is the “secret sauce.” He’s Tony Stark and PT Barnum rolled into one person.
Honestly, slow adoption rates are not the same as “non-success”. The Prius was a commercial success by any measure for a new car and a new technology, with sales peaking in 2013, but still selling a healthy 100K plus a year in the US.
Total EV sales equaling sales of the Jeep Wrangler is not “non-success” either.
Electric vehicles will not turn the corner until the battery problem is solved — American’s, at least, want to be able to drive 200+ miles on a tank of electricity — and to be able to charge up whenever and wherever they need to in less than 1/2 hour.
The EV still needs an as-yet-unrealized technical breakthrough in electrical storage/charging and the infra-structure necessary for every household to be able to use plug-in fast-chargers in their homes does not currently exist — that will take time.
As can be seen from the Prius — the hybrids make more sense in the present.
Truth is: EVs are the future as far as passenger vehicles are concerned. ….why anyone here at WUWT would want them to fail or seem to take pride in their slow adoption is a mystery to me.
How can you call anything a commercial success, when the government has to pay people to buy it?
EV’s are the future, and have been for over 100 years.
Can’t play this too many times…
https://youtu.be/8qrriKcwvlY
It’s a condition known as “being a Democrat.” </rimshot
MarkW ==> By your tape measure, electricity for homes was not a commercial success, as the government had to subsidize rural electrification, dam building, etc.
Kip, now that’s desperate.
1) You are trying to claim that the fact that for political reasons, the government decided to subsidize the expansion of electricity into rural areas proves that electricity wasn’t a commercial success everywhere else.
2) Most dams are dual use, they also proved flood control and recreation. What’s the percentage of hydro vs all other sources of electric power. You are trying to claim that since the government partially subsidized dams, this proves that the other 95% of electricity production was not commercially successful.
The flat rate paid for most services (incl. gas taxes) means that network cost are subsidized for remote locations and isolated homes (road, electric distribution, water piping, etc.).
This is also true of DSL over long phone lines that tend to have more issues and lower bandwidth which means high value added services like TV is not used, which means without the implicit subsidy those with worse DSL service should on average pay more.
Truth is any statement about the future is not true.
Slow adoption rates is the same as “non-success”.
BEV are a bad engineering idea because batters follow the second law of thermodynamics. When we run out of fossil fuels, fission can provide all the energy society.
Retired ==> Electrical storage (batteries) is the breakthrough needed to make Battery EVs the ride of choice for most passenger cars.
Nuclear power plants, enough of them, will make the electricity needed to charge all those cars up for the day. You got that right.
I’ve always wondered why so many EV enthusiasts have to proclaim that any criticism of their precious bundles is equivalent to wanting it to fail?
MarkW ==> The cheerful glee exhibited here is an example…..
These two essays on EVs are not sensible discussions of EV adoption rates and reasons why.
(BTW — I am not and would not be an EV owner — not until the infrastructure is put in place and the battery issue solved.
It really is amazing how you can read the minds of people posting here.
Can you tell me which card I’m holding behind my back?
“until the battery problem is solved …as-yet-unrealized technical breakthrough in electrical storage/charging …Truth is: EVs are the future”
People, incl. very clever, extremely talented people have been working on these difficulties… starting in the 19th century.
Like magnetic confinement, like aneutronic fusion, reproducible cold fusion… some people hope the solution is not far away, but the solution may not exist at all.
s-t ==> That is a possibility, of course. If an adequate fast-charging light-weight high-energy-density battery is not developed, then hybrids will rule the day.
Energy density
Lithium Ion Batteries: 0.36–0.875 MJ/KG
Gasoline or LPG : 46.4 MJ/Kg
Diesel: 48 MJ/Kg
The key to using electric motors is a more efficient process for converting the stored energy into useable electric energy, which the newer fuel cells promise to do.
Promises, promises!
The key to HFC is being able to efficiently produce fuel.
I love studies that compare 1970 F150 to something that does not exist as a practical matter.
Suggesting things have to be practical is why non-engineers find us boring.
Forget sparky cars.
EV’s are doomed. They don’t really reduce CO2 and prevent CAGW. They just make the owner “feel” like they are.
If I were to put my money where my mouth is, I’d buy the patents for the Stanley Steamer.
In a hundred years or so (according to “them”) a steam engine wouldn’t need a firebox under the boiler. The water would boil itself.
(I might never see a profit but I’m just thinking of my kids and grand-kids.)
(Damn! I can never find a sarc tag when I need one
Made a modification: The EV market share has literally skyrocketed from 4000 ppm to 13000 ppm of US light weight vehicle sales. Now those are some big numbers that you can trust. Or, is more ppm bad as in the case of CO2?
EV’s are YUGE compared to CO2…😆
Don’t yo mean Yugo.
Bacteria grow exponentially when given more food. The classic S-curve also shows a new steady state when the number of bacteria equals new bacteria.
It is amazing that proponents ignore this.
I have a vintage motor home (that we live in), a vintage convertible two seat sports car, and a vintage sailboat. The reason they are vintage is they last a long time and the cost of maintaining them is worth it to the owners.
The success of EV, PV, and wind turbines depends on the die off phase. It is not looking good either. I do not think there will ever be ‘vintage’ EV show, or folks barging about how well there 20 year old solar system or wind farm works.
Do enthusiast say that way when the dream is false?
“Solar on RVs is at least 20 years old.”
Yes John our RV has a 40w PV system to trickle charge the batteries when in storage. The rest of the time they are just drag.
I think it still works too.
I have some friends who have just traded their 2015 BMW i3 EV in on a BMW X1.
Why?
+ If they had kept the i3 for another 12 months it would have been worth almost nothing.
+ Battery performance was starting to drop off so trip planning was becoming a priority and necessity and there are few re-charging points around Perth, Western Australia.
+ A replacement battery was going to cost them approx. AUD20,000 as it required not just a new battery but entirely new wiring and software. Even the recharge plug was being changed.
+ They enjoyed the experience but would not have another EV.
+ The Insurance was cheaper on the X1 than on the i3 EV. The i3 is expensive as repairs to plastic panels is expensive, any damage to carbon fibre frame means vehicle write-off and repairs of battery damage.
So effectively redundant in 3 years.
So much for being carbon neutral.
Virtue signalling to the extreme (Look at me!”).
Why are we not surprised by any of the above???
I’m genuinely surprised that their battery performance has dropped off after three years. Do you know how many miles they’ve driven it? Do you know anything about their recharging behavior? I’ve written elsewhere in this thread that you don’t want to habitually a) go much below 20% state of charge, or b) top it off from a high state of charge. Those things are generally what degrades a lithium battery.
The i3 has a 33 kWh battery. It ought to 80 miles or so on 80% of the capacity, so it ought to be good for 160,000 miles (2,000 charging cycles) before it degrades to 70% of its original capacity. Either they drove that thing a whole lot; mistreated the battery; or the battery and/or the battery system is defective.
Ric Werme, I used the expression “never, never” to stress the word never. In our part of the world another way would be to say “not never, no how”. In future I will try to be less colloquial
@David M
RV statistics: http://www.rvia.org/?ESID=currentmonth
Kit P… you rock!
“Electrical storage (batteries) is the breakthrough needed to make Battery EVs the ride of choice for most passenger cars.”
I think I know what Kip mean by breakthrough. A little pixie dust makes Kips battery discharges more electricity that it took to charge.
A little pixie dust makes charges at a rate of 10 MWe using your cell phone charger from a 15 amp outlet.
A little pixie dust allows heat generated to be packaged in ziplock bags to heat your house in winter.
A little pixie dust makes batteries so light that it reduces weight and wind resistance.
A little pixie dust allows batteries to be made with hazardous waste and recycled to baby blankets.