From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
By Paul Homewood
h/t Philip Bratby
The car of the future!!
Electric car sales plummeted across Europe last month as demand dried up despite the EU’s push to ban petrol and diesel vehicles by the middle of the next decade.
Sales of battery-powered cars dropped by 11.3pc as demand in Germany, Europe’s largest economy, plunged by 28.9pc, according to the European Automobile Manufacturers’ Association (ACEA).
Only 13pc of new registrations were electric, down from 13.9pc in March last year and down from 14.6pc for all of 2023.
Sales of electric cars have stalled despite Europe’s plans to ban the sale of new internal combustion engine cars by 2035.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Gladly overall car sales seem to go down.
You don’t travel anywhere at all? Percentages don’t really give the whole picture.
This probably explains a great deal
14 Dec 2023 — The French government already offered buyers a cash incentive of between 5,000 and 7,000 euros to get more electric cars on the road.
22 Nov 2023 — In the case of individuals, and the self-employed, the subsidies can reach up to 7,000 euros (9,000 euros with the scrapping of a vehicle
BERLIN, Dec 16 (Reuters) – Germany’s electrical vehicle subsidy programme will end prematurely on Monday after paying out some 10 billion euros since 2016
In Username’s world you can’t even move musical equipment around
But he won’t drive one himself, he just tells others they must.
In the case I was referring to, UN (Username!) was advocating car free cities with public transport and bicycles. I put the question to it, how would you move a Marshall amp and a 4X12 cabinet around on a bicycle? No answer was given, needless to say.
Oh I remember, he then posted some stupid meme pic of a piano on a bizarre trike thing.
I told him to read the article, because it got into the transporting stuff and zone system…but that requires…reading. And he doesn’t even bother to give dimensions for his box.
But I guess all people that live car free or in amsterdam are dead now. Or don’t have hobbies.
But if you remember pictures:
And in civilized countries all your bigger transport can be done by renting a transporter, still no reason for an oversized emotional support vehicle.
You expect people, of all ages, to transport groceries home on two wheels and in all weather.
Get real.
I expect people to be able to live in a city that doesn’t require owning a car. And that has Infrastructure for people to be able to socialize and get through their daily lifes independent of car ownership and/or ability to drive.
I excpect a good quality of life in cities with less pollution and danger.
And I expect 40000 people per year not to be sacrificed in the name of the car and oil lobby.
Who pays for your utopia?
And you fail to comprehend that building battery cars requires a lot of petroleum.
Dont’cha know. As long as government pays for it, it’s free. /sarc
As always…
Who pays? Like all the other socialist utopias, the answer is always, someone else.
We don’t already have legs to walk, trains, bicycles, buses, scooters, trams, ferries?? Millions of people already live in cities and I’m sure many do not own a car.
What mode of transport would be “acceptable” to you?
I expect people to live where they want and travel how they want..
When people are given the choice between public or private transportation, then by the millions, they chose private transportation.
Of course socialists like losername can’t tolerate people disagreeing with them, so they use government to force people to choose what the socialists want.
I think the real number, globally, is well north of a million traffic deaths a year. But in your remark you are now admitting the main point:
Maybe you do. But you have to contend with the fact that for the last 50-100 years people have not wanted that. They have wanted to live in a city where it was possible to own and use a car. Consequently most cities are now places where having a car is somewhere between useful and essential.
You are talking wholesale change of those cities which will require huge investment and social engineering to transform them into how you think cities should be, the kind of city you want to live in. It may be worth doing, at least you may think that. But the task is to be open about it and persuade the people living and working there of your view.
Not to advocate EVs while pretending that all we change is the technology while everything carries on as before. That is not possible, and its not the real agenda.
One might be able to live in such a city, but a lot of us don’t want to. I wouldn’t live in any city. It us no surprise that most ridiculous ideas and democrats come from cities full of groupthink.
People have a choice to live in a city or not. Most chose not to. Many living in cities prefer living elsewhere, but they are stuck.
Who cares what the people want? The fact is, that when given the choice, the people opt for personal transportation. No government policies needed.
Of course socialists like losername, know what is best for everyone and believe that it is their duty to force everyone else to live up to their standards.
But how will you ever enjoy the double feature at the drive-in theater?
First, cities already exist, and may or not particularly suited to public transportation. They aren’t laid out so that all the amenities are withon walking distance for elderly people. But you never respond to that issue.
Please provide objective, scientific evidence for the 40,000 people per year who are sacrificed.
So you have screamed right past electric cars and you’re already banging the drum for NO car!!! Right don’t you try it first, show us how it’s done. And don’t expect me to pay (through taxes) for your bus line and/or light rail that I’m never going to use.
See, you miss the whole point of this “community” thing. A justification for the necessary evil of taxation is to pay for those things that an entire community needs, but are uneconomical for any individual (except for perhaps the very wealthy) to pay for only their own. Good examples would be for fire protection, or law enforcement. A very wealthy person might be able to hire enough body guards that he could live safely, but that’s not true for the majority. But if the whole block got together and hired a one-person round-the-clock security (at least 4 people, in other words, to cover all shifts with weekends, holidays, and other time off still covered) and each person in the block chips in a reasonable amount, then there is enough security for the entire block without bankrupting everyone. But what about those luxuries that one person needs, or maybe just wants, but that’s all that needs them? Why should my tax dollars pay for those things that I not only don’t need, I get no benefit from whatsoever? Don’t blather to me about clean air, it’s been proven a fiction, there will still be air pollution, even if it all comes from buses. What then?
I forecast an ever increasing rate of electric vehicles, buses, scooter battery fires.
“I expect people to be able to live in a city that doesn’t require owning a car. And that has Infrastructure for people to be able to socialize and get through their daily lifes independent of car ownership and/or ability to drive.”
So much for the tourist industry!
(How would all those lost jobs be calculated when they brag about “Green Jobs”?”)
And who’s going to tell those in the medical profession, particularly specialist, where they have to live in order that a patient can walk or ride a bike to the (very small) hospital for their heart transplant?
(Or maybe we’ll just go back to guys pulling carts around and yelling, “Bring out your dead!”)
This is a “PS” to this.
“I expect people to be able to live in a city that doesn’t require owning a car. And that has Infrastructure for people to be able to socialize and get through their daily lifes independent of car ownership and/or ability to drive.”
So much for the tourist industry!
(How would all those lost jobs be calculated when they brag about “Green Jobs”?”)
And who’s going to tell those in the medical profession, particularly specialist, where they have to live in order that a patient can walk or ride a bike to the (very small) hospital for their heart transplant?
(Or maybe we’ll just go back to guys pulling carts around and yelling, “Bring out your dead!”)
Where would these “15 minute cities” get their drinking water?
What would treat the water after they flushed the toilet? (Or would toilets be banned?)
How far apart from each other would these cities be?
Wouldn’t “inbreeding” eventually become a problem?
Nice dream, but it’s a wet one.
In paper bags, of course.
You can get help, but I’m sure you are too […] to do so.
There are some things, no, many things your childish view cannot address.
Tell me, can you see any major act setting off on tour using bicycles to move all the equipment, the roadies, technicians and admin etc?
You are truly off world, my friend.
No musician would ever move a real piano on such a ridiculous contraption, if it survived the trek, the necessary re-tuning would take an eternity.
In his world you can say goodbye to any instrument that uses electricity.
For example the Fender Rhodes Piano….
Excellent point.
He’s 9.
We were all struggling to comprehend anything then.
So I guess when I get older nothing will change. Or are people her not the norm in that regard? 😀
I wonder how people transport all their belongings and furniture when they move house in mylosername’s world. By bicycle or public transport?
A trolley pulled by hand even!
I think the issue is honesty. Its perfectly possible to live in some cities without a car. In fact, if you live in somewhere laid out like Manhattan you are probably far better off without one, barring a need to travel outside the city frequently to varied locations. You are never more than a short walk from a supermarket or two, mass transit gets you anywhere local fast and without the problems and expense of parking.
The current green agenda is to make cars more expensive and less useful, and so reduce car ownership, without arranging the urban environment in a way that makes that possible and convenient. But not to be honest about that. To advocate for making all cars EVs because climate. But not to admit that the real agenda, or at least the real consequence, is to reduce car ownership and use. And especially not to come clean about the size of the reduction that the EV policy entails.
I don’t know whether the next UK Government will keep on with the EV mandate. Starmer seems to have said he would reinstate the total ban on new ICE cars as of 2030. If that really happens it would shrink car purchases by well over 50%, and over time would also shrink car ownership by at least that percentage. We are talking abolition of the auto industry as we know it today, and a return in terms of car ownership to the 1950s. And the corresponding changes to society that will require.
People will hang on to their old ICE cars as long as they can, and not replace them with EVs.
I guess people are not honest about this because of the very large changes which this implies to how we all live and work and travel. Just be honest about it and be open about the implications. There is an argument to be made in favor of diminishing the use of cars, particularly in cities. Make it, and let people get their heads around the real story. I don’t think you will persuade many, but at least it will be an honest debate on the real issue.
They want to force everyone into these mega cities, then they can lock the masses out of the rest of the world, so that the elite don’t have to deal with crowds when on vacation.
“Its perfectly possible to live in some cities without a car.”
I lived in New Hampshire without a car for 3 years. (6 months in Nashua, 2.5 years in Concord.)
In both I found places to live within walking distance of my work.
No subways or public transit that I remember. (I walked to work a number of times through 10 or more inches of snow. Our patrons drove there.)
But I often needed to go to Manchester. I hitchhiked.
In a “15 minute city”, who would have a car to pick me up and get me where I needed to be?
If there were no cars, as Username desires, who would maintain the roads between cities? And why would they bother?
(Why does “divide and conquer” come to mind?)
That rig might peddle fine long as the avg. wind speed was below maybe 4 or 5 knots. Above that, it’d take outriggers to keep from tipping over. Sort a like what Rep. Hank Johnson said Guam might do with 8,000 more Jarheads on board :<)
And rain?
You will own nothing and be happy. Or else!
The beatings will continue until morale improves.
In Luser’s case… you will know nothing and be happily gormless.
Funny how the only countries that are civilized are the ones where nobody is allowed to disagree with people like loserName.
It took these guys 7 hours to cycle 5 miles lmao
You’re clueless
Who really wants to
liveexist in a glorified outhouse on wheels?The people pushing this nonsense have no plans to occupy these things. They are for everyone else.
You either have a rather sardonic sense of humour, or you’re a blithering idiot.
I opt for the latter.
So someone still has to sell tranporters, most of which still use petrol or diesel.
Yes a three man affair. And very ropey looking.
I can drive my car solo.
How would this guy have ever coped?
Jimi Hendrix’s AmpsJimi Hendrix was one of the earliest users of Marshallamplifiers, and for most of his career he powered his sound with three 100-watt Super Lead valve amp heads. Preferring to use all of them in unison through multiple Marshall 4×12” cabinets, Hendrix’s live performances were not only notoriously loud, but this huge setup also helped him to form his heavily overdriven sound.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wall_of_Sound_(Grateful_Dead)
The Wall of Sound was an enormous sound reinforcement system designed in 1973 specifically for the Grateful Dead’s live performances. The largest concert sound system built at that time,[1][2] the Wall of Sound fulfilled lead designer Owsley “Bear” Stanley’s desire for a distortion-free sound system that could also serve as its own monitoring system. Due to its size, weight and resulting expense, the full WoS was only used from March to October of 1974.
Another possible contributing factor is that people are switching back to ICE pre am so as to have a reliable long range vehicle in 2055
Yes indeed – the net zero cults are impoverishng us all, so only the virtue signalling tax dodgers can afford to buy new cars as regularly.
Maybe a bit more brow beating will get us all on board with the EV dreams and ambitions – or should I say delusions?
Most of us want to live in a world we are free to explore, even if that is only a weekend drive in the countryside with the family, maybe take a picnic or stop for a pub lunch. You can live in your 15 minute city if you want, never meet any new people, never get a change of scenery or if you do, be restricted by bus and train schedules as to how far you can go and how long you can stay. Your “utopia” will probably have a curfew too, so that won’t be very far at all.
Another socialist who celebrates the fact that average people are getting poorer.
Old cars are made to last longer when folk are made poorer by green policies.
They’re running out of stupid people, other than this person
Regardless, EVs lost marketshare which means the migration to EVs is failing.
Tooting is a hotch potch of communities; a large immigrant population that surrounds an area of the more middle class (and very right on, consistently voting Labour) English people. These ‘people’ were most likely to take up the subsidies and EVs. They did. But they are finite in number, and there’s no way to tell if they own, lease or use a company car.
My council has installed fast chargers and lamp post chargers. It’s a funny system, fast charging is not penalised by a parking charge – without a permit, obtainable from the council. However, slow charging on a lamp post will incur a penalty.
Some have installed home charging which has cables run across the pavement. In one instance the vehicle owner couldn’t park outside his house as another car was in the way. So, he ran an ordinary domestic extension cable down the street to his car.
I’ve commented before on the ludicrousness of the idea of apartments, tower blocks and home charging, it ain’t going to happen. Besides, they have their hands full with the own goal cladding crisis.
I had expected a few confrontations where lamp post charging is concerned. We tend to think of the parking spaces outside our homes as ‘ours’. But the number of EVs appears to have levelled out a while ago, now. There’s no hint of a queue for a charger anywhere round here, or in London for that matter.
I think 97% of people who intended to get an EV have probably already done so. Rather them than me.
Not only that but imagine the carnage in a block of flats when the underground parking goes up in flames due to spontaneously combusting EVs
I read that in the UK the most sales of EVs are as company cars, where they have a favorable benefit-in-kind tax status, ie all the value is not counted as taxable income.
However this seems to have led to a curious phenomenon where people opt for a plug in hybrid, which counts as an EV for tax purposes, and then simply do not ever charge it, just rely on the gas engine. Works fine, just that you are lugging around electric motors and batteries which you never use. But if you don’t pay tax on it, who cares?
The moral is, if buying a used plug in hybrid in the UK, be very careful. A battery which has been flat for a couple of years in company car lease will probably need replacing. Or I guess you could just keep on lugging it around. A funny sort of road tax, you are not charged in money, the tax is just that in order to save the climate you have to lug this useless load around all the time….
This article is not getting on my blog’s recommended reading list today because it leaves out important context:
Global sales of electric vehicles (EVs) grew by 21% in 1Q 2024 versus 1Q 2023, announced leading EV research house, Rho Motion.
With 4.4 million units sold globally in the fourth quarter, and 13.7 million in 2023 as a whole, electric vehicles made up 18% of total passenger vehicle sales in the world in 2023.
The percentages includes both BEVs and PHEVs. Most statistics do. BEVs have been losing popularity and PHEVs have been gaining popularity. If the opposite was true, the statistics would only mention BEVs.
For many years about 99% of EV articles I recommended on my blog were anti-EV. For the simple reason: They are more expensive than ICE vehicles and offer less value. I would never want one.
But when I mention actual EV sales of EVs, which are still surprising, some conservatives go berserk and come after me with pitchforks, torches and wearing masks to hide their faces.
The Honest Climate Science and Energy Blog
.
More whining.
I thought whining and insulting is the modus operandi here?
Your self critique of your posts is a bit harsh, but if that’s what you think ….
How about the insult of calling someone a climate denier because they dare to challenge the claim that using fossil fuels is going to burn up the planet and boil the oceans? Put out by national leaders, the UN, the MSM and clowns like Mickey Mann. Speaking of Mann- check out Tony Heller’s latest:
Mickey! My Mann!
Isn’t climate change denying what you are doing? How could that be an insult?
At least own up to it. Or need a safe space?
Climate change is natural and ceaseless.
What you appear to desire is a state of stasis where nothing changes. I think by any stretch of the imagination that you are the one in denial.
As far as I know the rate is far faster than it normally would be, and thats what you deny, right?
And opposing change is clearly the main focus here, at least on energy. Or infrastructure. Or anything really.
As far as I know
Thanks for clearing that up.Change in a healthy society is consumer led and market fed. In your world you tell people what they want – or else.
All your alleged alternatives are hopelessly inadequate to the challenge. Why not give up the pretence?
Being able to document and record change at a faster, more accurate, and granular rate than ever before does not catastrophic change make.
There is no coincidence that the documented start coincides with moving off the farms, broader measurements, and numerous societies which are able to use their newly freed up time.
Did benefits come with side effects and cost? Yes. Have we made trade offs and improvements? Yes. Were all of them perfect? No. However, we continue to grow, learn, and apply lessons learned.
Myself, I can’t wait to move beyond the first world guilt movement which still requires ignorance to thrive.
As far as I know the rate is based on a relatively short timeframe and there is siginifacnt doubt (and scepticism) about what is actually changing (and is it good or bad for us), how much is mann made and how significant the change is compared to the last 500K/1m/2m/?? years.
So spending trillions on solutions to a problem that can’t be measured (do you have a target CO2 level, a target global temperature?), is not opposing change, it’s just questioning why are we doing this without some rational review of what is causing the alleged problem. At present for every new green “solution” there always has to be a major breakthrough in technology just to prop it up (along with the usual billions of tax payer and consumer funding).
Opposing stupid/deluded/unnecessary change is not denial.
You and your buddies are welcome to hold your beliefs but why should we fund it without having the opportunity to challenge the reality of it.
The only denials in this whole scam are the cult – living in denial – and the powers that be – denying any opportunity to look at alternative “climate theories”.
You don’t know that. You believe it.
There you go repeating a baseless claim, that if only the fearful deniers would get out of the way, you’d have climate and energy utopia.
Must be all that Big Oil funding, right?
Your problem is, that you don’t want to know anything that doesn’t fit into your warped world view.
The reality is that even the rate of change is well within the range of normal.
If you actually knew something about science and statistics, instead of just swallowing what you are told to believe, you would know the danger of trying to compare long period proxies with data with annual or even daily resolution.
On 25 km grids no less.
No, what we deny is that it’s a bad thing. Warmer is better.
Specifically, because of the second law of thermodynamics (and the fact that the warming is greatest in the coldest places and times), some kinds of violent weather are dropping drastically. (Temperature differences are the energy source for most wind.) So, we see data like this.
https://www.spc.noaa.gov/faq/tornado/f5torns.html
Notice that the last half of the 20th century saw an average of one cat 5 tornado per year, while the 21st century has had less than half that, and none at all in the last ten years.
Science!
Quoth mylosername: As far as I know the rate is far faster than it normally would be, and thats what you deny, right?
Note how the goalposts are being moved, first from warming to climate change, and now to the rate of change.
It is a blatant lie that the current rate of climate change is unprecedented:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas
As far as you know the rate is faster than it normally would be?
The science, the real science does not support that conclusion.
Opposing catastrophic change to energy and infrastructure, yes. Most of us think crashing civilization is not a good path forward.
“As far as I know”…..
The absolute ignorance of your comments shows just how little you know about anything.
What you “know” is erroneous meaningless garbage..
It is nearly uniformly ANTI-knowledge.
Why do battery cars need lots of coal and oil to manufacture?
Why can’t you stay on topic?
This is the best you can do?
“Electric car demand plunges across Europe”
Why do battery cars need lots of coal and oil to manufacture?
“MyUsername” has suffered a severe metaphysical dichotomy and has shut down.
Divadroid Inc will be sending you a credit note….
Ha!
“Landru guide us!”
A) because Wind and Solar can’t supply sufficiently reliable energy to manufacture anything
And coal is necessary to reduce iron and silica oxides to make steel and glass.
And Solar PV cells
Hydrogen might do it but obtaining the molecular hydrogen is prohibitively expensive and creates a far more reactive GHG…H2O.
Increasing atmospheric Water Vapor concentration will trap far more heat than CO2 ever could.
Then there’s no guarantee that the resulting “Green” steel (which does require a certain amount of Carbon in the mix) would be as strong as traditional carbon steel
That’s bang on topic
He is following your lead.
Why do battery cars need lots of Coal and Natural Gas to recharge?
…
Hint, recharging them depends on a RELIABLE Grid
Nope- not me. I’m aware of some trivial change in the weather during my 74 years. Winters are milder, summers are trivially warmer- a bit more rain, less snow. Nothing to panic over. In my opinion, the weather is IMPROVED. No reason to drastically change everything about our civilization. It’s a denial that there is an emergency. The use of the word “denial” is to compare it to holocaust denial. But of course what I just said- you cannot comprehend.
Who denies the climate changes?
The real climate deniers are the ones who deny the fact the climate changes all the time, naturally.
As far as owning up to it- at least I use MY REAL NAME. I’ll stand by anything I say.
What, the climate has never changed before?
Regardless, there is nothing happening in weather that hasn’t happened before and is completely within the range of normal.
Climate models, especially ones that have never been calibrated and can’t accurately hindcase, are not data and they are not science.
Who’s denying climate change and what do you think they are denying?
We do not deny climate change. We question policies based on catastrophic anthropogenic climate change.
The head of IPCC last July issued a statement that alarmism is not called for and damaging, not helpful. Less than 2 months later the UN Sec.Gen. again declared code red and went further to declare we are on the precipice.
The IPCC summary clearly documented no threats other than a low risk of mildly warmer temperatures.
Call me what you want. I know I am pragmatic. I know I read both sides. I know I question my own beliefs on this topic.
I also know that when some starts with an insult THAT is code red and a flag that what follows is not science.
Reading is not your strong suit. The realists here dispute that climate change is a problem deserving trillions of dollars (pounds, euros) wasted on impoverishing the West.
There are no climate deniers
There are science deniers, especially here, who deny AGW,
who deny CO2 had 33% mane origins,
who deny the greenhouse effect, and
who deny that CO2 can cause any amount of global warming.
They are science deniers and fools.
I’d prefer to call them “You Can’t Prove It Climate Buffoons”, but that would make them too angry. They are already stupid. Stupid and angry could be dangerous.
Those who deny CAGW are NOT science deniers because there is no science to support predictions of CAGW … or any observations of CAGW in the past 48 years of harmless global warming.
Not necessarily. To deny that rises in CO2 have a forcing effect is indeed science denial, or at least very silly and contrary to the evidence and to physics.
But to believe that this forcing effect when applied to the climate of planet Earth does not cause global warming is neither stupid nor to be a ‘science denier’.
You might hold this position, for instance, because you believe that there are negative feedbacks which hold the temperature of the planet within some bounds, so that a rise produced by the forcing effect of CO2 rises will lead to negative feedbacks which cancel it, thereby resulting in no global warming.
This may be right or wrong, but its a perfectly reasonable hypothesis, capable of being verified by the usual scientific methods.
Your mistakes, here as elsewhere, are to attribute too much evidential value to consensus, and to confuse forcing with its ultimate result (or lack of one).
CO2 has a minor role in the earth climate system. The denial comes from being skeptical that it the only cause of climate change.
Had you left out the insults and disingenuous comments I could have agreed.
Instead, again, you went with red flags.
That was funny
Only for yourself. The rest of us have grown up.
Anything you don’t like to hear, such as EV sales growth, is whining?
Richard as you know one thing to look at when you compare EV vs. Gas growth is the base number – hard to show big growth from a larger number and so relatively new technology with government/manufacturer incentives should show growth.
It is interesting to see the EV growth and it would be interesting to know what sales would have been without incentives. The other place to look is at the markets where sales are occurring. Sometimes that can round out the story.
Regardless, I posted below a report showing some real concerning data for EVs demand in the USA.
EV sales is reaching Peak Wealthy Buyers so the prices must be lowered to attract stupid buyers as well.
On the backs of taxpayers, involuntarily.
Surprised he didn’t add that his ‘blog’ (I use the term loosely) has a view count – so he claims without evidence – approaching a million readers. As I described back at the end of March, this guy does not pass the smell test with me.
There is definitely lots of expanded gasses involved.
Another term might be “clickbait artist”.
This article is not getting on my blog’s recommended reading list.
For some strange reason on reading that I was reminded of The Mikado!
“As some day it may happen that a victim must be found
I’ve got a little list — I’ve got a little list
Of society offenders who might well be underground
And who never would be missed — who never would be missed!
There’s the pestilential nuisances who write for autographs”
Etc etc
Observation tells me numbers in this part of the world have flatlined for some time.
Is there a gibberish decoder ring for your comment?
You are culturally devoid, an empty vessel.
What a thickie
PHEVs are not zero emission (although, neither are EVs) – so in order to meet our imaginary goals, PHEVs are part of the problem because they use relaible energy sources and have a proper operating range.
Since the article is about battery powered cars – PHEVs should not be included, or if they were it should be under petrol powered cars since most of their usefulness is based on the petrol part of their drive train.
I just hope that your blog readers can live with the disappointment of you not adding this article…..
I did not find Q1 2024 global BEV only sales data in my five minute search. Or I would have reported it here.
PHEVs are low emissions vehicles.
A hybrid generates 270 grams of carbon dioxide per mile, roughly 53.6 tons in its life.
A plug-in hybrid generates 230 grams of carbon dioxide per mile, about 45.6 tons in its life.
An EV generates 195 grams of carbon dioxide per mile, about 38.7 tons in its life.
Global EV sales continued as expected by us at the beginning of 2023.
A total of 14,2 million new Battery Electric Vehicles (BEV) and Plug-in Hybrids (PHEV) were delivered during 2023, an increase of +35 %.
10 million were pure electric BEVs and 4,2 million were Plug-in Hybrids (PHEV) and Range Extender EVs (EREV).
“Total BEV sales in 2023 in all twenty analyzed markets amounted to 9.97 million. Sales in markets not covered in our study will have undoubtedly brought the total to more than 10 million. Annual BEV growth across all analyzed markets was 28%, far in excess of the 5% increase in sales of internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles.”
Electric Vehicle Sales Review Q4-2023 | PwC and Strategy&
Per mile is not the life-cycle value.
” delivered” not “sold”?
I think “globally” could be narrowed down to China, where the bulk of sales are.
https://insideevs.com/news/710334/china-plugin-car-sales-january2024/#:~:text=The%20volume%20almost%20doubled%20year,of%20all%20new%20car%20registrations.
The article cited by this post is about BEVs, if I’m not mistaken. Saying it’s inaccurate because the numbers do not include hybrids (PHEVs) is misleading.
You missed the point completely. Buyers choose something else instead of a BEV.
I’m sure the author is utterly devastated.
Grauniad 16th April 2024-
‘Musk to cut 14,000 Tesla jobs amid electric car slowdown’
“Tesla is laying off more than 10% of its global workforce, equivalent to at least 14,000 roles, as the electric carmaker reacts to slowing demand and pressure on prices.”
“Mattias Schmidt, an automotive industry analyst, said the job cuts reflected the slowing pace of an electric car market, which it appears Tesla isn’t immune from”
UK i Newspaper 16th April 2024-
‘BP cuts 10% of its electric vehicle workforce’
“BP cut more than a tenth of the workforce in its electric vehicle charging business and pulled it out of several markets after a bet on rapid growth in commercial EV fleets did not pay off, company sources said”
“The move came as carmakers across the world tighten their belts amid a slower than expected uptake of EVs”
The drop in EV sales may be a indication that we are running out of idiots. That would be a good thing.😉
Unfortunately there is a limitless supply of idiots in this world.
Yes, but after several years of inflation, there aren’t enough idiots who can afford an EV, and the insurance
“Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.”
A trend the warmunists don’t like. And it’s real data. So we conclude they only like fake data that supports their bias, and/or they just live in a constant infuriated state of cognitive dissonance.
Perhaps the people who want EVs have already purchased them? Perhaps true demand is less than predicted?
At today’s prices, few people can afford an EV, even with subsidies and tax breaks. Also, European nations have the same economic problems as the US, including high inflation, energy costs and economic uncertainty. People delay major purchases in bad times.
With the exception of Tesla owners, who have a tendency towards cultishness anyway, most EV owners are planning on switching back when they get their next car.
My somewhat educated take on the sales numbers from my time in the industry.
In reading the article I would take a bit lightly the month this year vs. a month last year like the March numbers. That may not really show a trend as yes, the end of month Holiday can make a difference in sales depending when the manufacturer closes the registration window.
However the statement: “Volkswagen, Mercedes-Benz and Tesla have all reported falling electric vehicle sales in the first three months of the year.” that raises some red flags for the industry. Normally months and quarters are a time for sales incentives to close and hence a reason to report sales on time.
ALSO– looking at this report from Automotive News(story tip) on the US market shows real problems! These are huge incentives! If dealers cannot move vehicles off their floors (and floor plans) there is not room to sell more to them.
——————————————————–
As inventory bloats, automakers offer large discounts to EV buyers
Bloated electric vehicle inventory is pushing automakers and dealers to slash prices, with many discounts reaching far into double-digit percentages.
Nissan is offering almost $16,000, or nearly a third, off its Ariya electric crossover, and that’s before any state or utility rebates for buyers depending on their location. Mercedes-Benz is giving its EQS SUV a $19,442 cut from an average price of $104,747, a 19 percent discount, according to Cox Automotive.
Automakers discounted EVs nearly $6,000 on average in the first quarter, according to Cox Automotive. (Some dealership-reported incentives may include the federal tax credit if it was applied at the point of sale, the firm said.) Automakers and retailers are offering the discounts to quickly sell the electric models that are flooding dealership lots.
As of April 1, EVs were sitting on dealership lots for an average of 119 days. While that’s fallen from a peak of 169 days in mid-February — helped by the discounts — it’s still a lot higher than the 73-day supply average of gasoline-powered vehicles. Days’ supply — or the average number of days a vehicle stays in dealer inventory before selling — can include vehicles in progress, in transit and on dealership lots.
“Consumers … might want to wait” to buy EVs, said Stephanie Valdez Streaty, director of industry insights at Cox Automotive. “It’s a huge investment. Affordability is an issue.”
— Hannah Lutz
Read the full story here. https://www.autonews.com/sales/ev-oversupply-pushes-automakers-dealers-slash-prices
——————————————————————————————-
This clearly shows the consumers current lack of appetite for EV’s vs. supply. The days on the floor difference is a good comparison for demand of specific models. Once dealers move this inventory I suspect they will be reluctant to take new EV inventory. The incentives may push those last buyers, but unless things change this is bad for the automotive business in general, dealers and OEMs.
Hopefully, this senseless push to EVs (and I am not against EVs, just the forcing to buy by misinformed governments) will end. Manufacturers need to get after their politicians or we, the taxpayers will be bailing out the industry again.
According to a recent study, reported on KNX yesterday, 38% of EV sales in the US are in California (what a surprise). The next-largest state-wide EV sales number is under 9%, in Texas (probably in Dallas, Austin and Houston). Florida was third, with something over 6%. The report didn’t address changes from last year.
EVs aren’t a good idea, never were.
Governments can plan to force the switch to EVs by any date they want, but if consumers refuse to buy them, how long will it take before manufacturers stop producing them and lay off thousands of workers in the process? And what about the suppliers of batteries and other components for them? Are they expected to keep producing as well? How long will the public stand for subsidies to these companies if they keep losing money on products for which there is limited demand? EV proponents need to face reality: they’re pushing something that is likely to occupy only a niche market until the technology improves to a point where the prices, reliability, cruising ranges, and resale values become more competitive with their ICE counterparts.
Story Tip; https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2024/04/the-ev-bubble-bursts.php