Are electric cars too expensive to tempt motorists away from petrol vehicles?(theguardian.com)
theguardian.com
Are electric cars too expensive to tempt motorists away from petrol vehicles?
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2023/dec/16/are-electric-cars-too-expensive-to-tempt-motorists-away-from-petrol-and-diesel-vehicles
242 comments
SSD only became mainstream after 3D TLC was invented, bringing costs down. Planar MLC was okay but was still somewhat expensive, tech enthusiast thingy.
So for petrol, sure, if we just had as energy dense batterry as fossile fuels.
No, current tech is not there yet. The big range vechiles are stupidly expensive, and the inexpensive ones are daily commuters only, mostly. They also charge slowly. Most people don't own multiple vechiles for different purposes, the primary purpose of personal vechile is utility and mobility. People get stuck in their personal bubbles and forget that for most people cars are actually a tool.
For batteries, big range drops in winter, no solution for people living in apartments with no capability to "charge at home", high electricity prices at not "charge at home" places.
Please don't bring in hydrogen here :) it's Toyota's pipe dream, not reallity. We really need 3D NAND flash of SSD moment for batteries, that would revolutionize a lot of industries, not just personal vechiles.
So for petrol, sure, if we just had as energy dense batterry as fossile fuels.
No, current tech is not there yet. The big range vechiles are stupidly expensive, and the inexpensive ones are daily commuters only, mostly. They also charge slowly. Most people don't own multiple vechiles for different purposes, the primary purpose of personal vechile is utility and mobility. People get stuck in their personal bubbles and forget that for most people cars are actually a tool.
For batteries, big range drops in winter, no solution for people living in apartments with no capability to "charge at home", high electricity prices at not "charge at home" places.
Please don't bring in hydrogen here :) it's Toyota's pipe dream, not reallity. We really need 3D NAND flash of SSD moment for batteries, that would revolutionize a lot of industries, not just personal vechiles.
SSDs also had an inflection point when floods hit Thailand knocking out plants where a good chunk of spinning rust HD motors were made. Spinning drives exploded in price pushing people to accept a smaller but faster SSD and deal with it.
> We observed the first uptick at the end of October, reaching its peak in the first week of November with price increases in the 80-190% range for desktop drives and 80-150% for mobile units. Although we're beginning to see price reductions across the board, on average drives are still about 60-90% more expensive than they were before the flooding.
https://www.techspot.com/guides/494-hard-drive-pricewatch-th...
> We observed the first uptick at the end of October, reaching its peak in the first week of November with price increases in the 80-190% range for desktop drives and 80-150% for mobile units. Although we're beginning to see price reductions across the board, on average drives are still about 60-90% more expensive than they were before the flooding.
https://www.techspot.com/guides/494-hard-drive-pricewatch-th...
It doesn't help that greed means that even though electricity is everywhere and is the most fungible form of energy, we're putting arbitrary limitations to buying it, way more than gas/petrol despite the latter actually requiring significantly more infrastructure.
With a gas car I am confident I can drive up to any gas station and get fuel with my credit card. I'm not confident I can do the same with electric cars - even if I do find a charge point, I'm worried it's not going to let me pay & charge until I download a stupid app, provide a ton of data to hundreds of data brokers and still remain stranded when all this mess of moving parts breaks down somewhere and doesn't let me proceed.
With a gas car I am confident I can drive up to any gas station and get fuel with my credit card. I'm not confident I can do the same with electric cars - even if I do find a charge point, I'm worried it's not going to let me pay & charge until I download a stupid app, provide a ton of data to hundreds of data brokers and still remain stranded when all this mess of moving parts breaks down somewhere and doesn't let me proceed.
Even with SSDs, it's only laptops specifically that made a wholesale shift to SSDs. Why? Because laptops get jostled around, and SSDs are impervious to rough handling.
Over in the land of desktops, servers, and other stationary computing installations, HDDs are still superior if you do not explicitly require (or want) the fast access speeds and latencies of SSDs which are oftentimes overkill for most use cases.
Over in the land of desktops, servers, and other stationary computing installations, HDDs are still superior if you do not explicitly require (or want) the fast access speeds and latencies of SSDs which are oftentimes overkill for most use cases.
The amount of digging and extremely polluting chemical processing required to manufacture an electric car is massive. After that, you need to power it, which means expanding the electric grid and power facilities (which means even more destruction of environment). And, at the end of the day, the power used to charge these cars is still more likely than not gonna come from fossil fuels.
I feel we’re pushing the electric cars too early on people. The grid is far from being green yet, and the batteries are not that great in terms of efficiency, safety (spontaneous combustion anyone?) and the toll on natural environment. And yet governments are not doing any deeper analysis, and are just ramming those things down people’s throats.
I feel we’re pushing the electric cars too early on people. The grid is far from being green yet, and the batteries are not that great in terms of efficiency, safety (spontaneous combustion anyone?) and the toll on natural environment. And yet governments are not doing any deeper analysis, and are just ramming those things down people’s throats.
Does that mean mankind has to grow its energy usage 24 times to match the energy absorbed by the Earth?
Thinking about energy usage always puzzles me.
I'm not even sure if driving a car from one city to another really uses energy.
For example, let's look at it this way: The energy from the sun is heating earth. When we use some of it to drive a solar-powered electric car from one city to another, does that lower the temperature of planet earth? I would think it does not. So why did we get the energy to drive the car for free? I would think that the surprising answer is: Moving something from A to B does not use energy at all. But I'm not sure.
I'm not even sure if driving a car from one city to another really uses energy.
For example, let's look at it this way: The energy from the sun is heating earth. When we use some of it to drive a solar-powered electric car from one city to another, does that lower the temperature of planet earth? I would think it does not. So why did we get the energy to drive the car for free? I would think that the surprising answer is: Moving something from A to B does not use energy at all. But I'm not sure.
Energy is, in fact, conserved, as you point out. When we colloqually talk about 'using energy', we are generally referring to converting low-entropy energy (like electricity, sunlight, chemical energy from fuel) into high-entropy energy (ultimately dissipated as heat in the air), hopefully doing useful work along the way. High-entropy energy cannot generally be harnessed to do useful work anywhere nearly as easily as low-entropy energy.
Let me try to wrap my head around this:
Say there is a completely static, black planet. All sunlight that hits it is turned into heat which is dissipated into the universe. Nothing moves on that planet.
The static black inhabitants of the planet are very thankful for the sun that it makes their planet nicely warm and cozy.
Now one day, one of them is allowed to travel to planet earth and read Hacker News. He reads this very thread.
Are you telling him that they are wasting half of the benefits they could get from the sun? They could have a nice warm planet AND drive around in electric cars all day? For free? Everything else would stay the same?
If so, doesn't that make driving a car "free" in that it not even increased the amount of entropy? Since the sunlight would have turned into high entropy heat anyhow?
Say there is a completely static, black planet. All sunlight that hits it is turned into heat which is dissipated into the universe. Nothing moves on that planet.
The static black inhabitants of the planet are very thankful for the sun that it makes their planet nicely warm and cozy.
Now one day, one of them is allowed to travel to planet earth and read Hacker News. He reads this very thread.
Are you telling him that they are wasting half of the benefits they could get from the sun? They could have a nice warm planet AND drive around in electric cars all day? For free? Everything else would stay the same?
If so, doesn't that make driving a car "free" in that it not even increased the amount of entropy? Since the sunlight would have turned into high entropy heat anyhow?
I'm not sure if you're asking actual or rhetorical questions. Assuming they're genuine:
> Are you telling him that they are wasting half of the benefits they could get from the sun? They could have a nice warm planet AND drive around in electric cars all day? For free? Everything else would stay the same?
Strictly speaking, yeah, they're not using all the energy they could. "Wasting" seems like a weird way to say it though, because it feels like that implies they want to be doing something with it.
> If so, doesn't that make driving a car "free" in that it not even increased the amount of entropy? Since the sunlight would have turned into high entropy heat anyhow?
On a long enough timescale nothing matters from the point of view of entropy. Net entropy will always increase. This is a pretty useless observation if you're trying to make a value judgement on the much smaller timescale of a civilization or the much smaller physical system of a planet, where having easily harnessable energy is important.
> Are you telling him that they are wasting half of the benefits they could get from the sun? They could have a nice warm planet AND drive around in electric cars all day? For free? Everything else would stay the same?
Strictly speaking, yeah, they're not using all the energy they could. "Wasting" seems like a weird way to say it though, because it feels like that implies they want to be doing something with it.
> If so, doesn't that make driving a car "free" in that it not even increased the amount of entropy? Since the sunlight would have turned into high entropy heat anyhow?
On a long enough timescale nothing matters from the point of view of entropy. Net entropy will always increase. This is a pretty useless observation if you're trying to make a value judgement on the much smaller timescale of a civilization or the much smaller physical system of a planet, where having easily harnessable energy is important.
Yes, if you are replacing a process which basically just converts low entropy energy into high entropy heat directly with something that does more interesting along the way, the end result is basically the same from an entropy point of view. Generally we as a species are not limited by the entropy available at the moment, but by our ability to harness it and the consequences of doing so in terms of the balances of the systems that it flows through.
Um.
There’s this little detail of efficiency. Much less than 100% of energy used for acceleration and overcoming friction is actually spent on those. Most ends up heating up random stuff like engines, brakes, roads and tires.
I’m confused why do you think anything could be moved from A to B for free? You have to charge the car, or fuel it up, after all?
There’s this little detail of efficiency. Much less than 100% of energy used for acceleration and overcoming friction is actually spent on those. Most ends up heating up random stuff like engines, brakes, roads and tires.
I’m confused why do you think anything could be moved from A to B for free? You have to charge the car, or fuel it up, after all?
It can be more instructive to consider entropy rather than energy usage.
The energy coming from the sun has low entropy and that makes it easy to capture and convert into electricity/plants etc. When you use some of that energy to move a car, you're converting the useful low entropy of the electricity/fuel into high entropy "waste" heat that can no longer be easily captured and used.
The energy coming from the sun has low entropy and that makes it easy to capture and convert into electricity/plants etc. When you use some of that energy to move a car, you're converting the useful low entropy of the electricity/fuel into high entropy "waste" heat that can no longer be easily captured and used.
Isn't that "waste" heat still warming the planet? Isn't turning a cold planet into a warm planet a good thing and therefore the "waste" heat is still "used" for something useful?
No not really. There's a known problem with the atmosphere starting to retain too much heat (as opposed to radiating it out into space) due to the amount of CO2 (and other gasses) that people are dumping into the atmosphere. Far from being useful, it's likely to collapse our current civilisation.
Global warming is not caused by waste heat. It is not caused by energy use per-se (indeed, energy is never used, but always conserved). It is caused by a shift in the equilibrium temperature, at which the amount of energy radiated by the Earth equals the amount of incident sunlight. The surface of the Earth gets hotter to radiate the same amount of energy (picture an incandescent light bulb), because greenhouse gasses form an insulative barrier. Burning fossil fuels releases CO2, which increases the amount of insulation. It does also release heat, but that hardly matters; if that were all it did, the heat would ultimately be radiated into space as infrared. The problem isn't "energy use". Nuclear, for example, wouldn't appreciably increase planetary temperatures (I say this not to be a booster for nuclear power, but just because it adds heat that does not come from the sun without creating greenhouse gasses, so it works as an example.). The problem is greenhouse gasses.
Toy ODE model:
dx/dt = -k x + a + b.
Here, x is temperature, a is solar heat input, and b is heat input from human sources. I'm dropping some coefficients that would make the units strictly work. We have a >>> b. The coefficient k says how easily the Earth radiates heat. Adding greenhouse gasses makes k closer to zero.
At equilibrium, dx/dt = 0. Solving,
x = (a + b) / k ~= a / k
Again, b is tiny relative to a. So almost the only thing that matters is k.
Toy ODE model:
dx/dt = -k x + a + b.
Here, x is temperature, a is solar heat input, and b is heat input from human sources. I'm dropping some coefficients that would make the units strictly work. We have a >>> b. The coefficient k says how easily the Earth radiates heat. Adding greenhouse gasses makes k closer to zero.
At equilibrium, dx/dt = 0. Solving,
x = (a + b) / k ~= a / k
Again, b is tiny relative to a. So almost the only thing that matters is k.
Venus would be a pretty unpleasant place to live for many reasons, one of which is how balmy it is due to its atmosphere being quite effective at trapping heat from the sun.
We actually spend quite a bit of energy doing the work of moving heat from colder to hotter areas because humans don't like to be too hot.
We actually spend quite a bit of energy doing the work of moving heat from colder to hotter areas because humans don't like to be too hot.
Other answers correctly talk about entropy. Here’s an analogy that might help with intuition.
A kilogram bar of solid gold is worth about $70K.
Take every atom of that gold and sprinkle them separately into the ocean. You haven’t used any gold: it’s all still there. The difference in value of the bar and the seawater containing the exact same gold is in the arrangement and availability of the gold, not its mere existence.
Same with energy stored in a battery vs stored in slightly warmer atmosphere.
A kilogram bar of solid gold is worth about $70K.
Take every atom of that gold and sprinkle them separately into the ocean. You haven’t used any gold: it’s all still there. The difference in value of the bar and the seawater containing the exact same gold is in the arrangement and availability of the gold, not its mere existence.
Same with energy stored in a battery vs stored in slightly warmer atmosphere.
I wasn't comparing energy in a battery to energy in the atmosphere.
I was comparing a car in city A with a car moved to city B. Both in warm atmosphere. You can heat the atmosphere AND move the car, without creating more entropy than by just heating the atmosphere. So it looks like moving the car does not create entropy / does not use energy.
With the gold, you cannot buy an apartment with it if you sprinkle it in the ocean. You have to decide: Buy an apartment OR sprinkle it in the ocean. You can't get the apartment AND an ocean with gold sprinkles. So you can't get the apartment for free.
I was comparing a car in city A with a car moved to city B. Both in warm atmosphere. You can heat the atmosphere AND move the car, without creating more entropy than by just heating the atmosphere. So it looks like moving the car does not create entropy / does not use energy.
With the gold, you cannot buy an apartment with it if you sprinkle it in the ocean. You have to decide: Buy an apartment OR sprinkle it in the ocean. You can't get the apartment AND an ocean with gold sprinkles. So you can't get the apartment for free.
You're missing many many factors that are part of the total footprint of a vehicle: making & maintenance of the vehicle, of roads, infrastructure, maintenance buildings, energy, resources, parkings, ... all indirect environmental costs basically
Fuel being petrol or electric is only a small part of it
Fuel being petrol or electric is only a small part of it
Assuming the quoted figures are correct ...
it'd be more like 24 x 365 (and a bit) to match the per hour input to per year usage.
it'd be more like 24 x 365 (and a bit) to match the per hour input to per year usage.
No, about 100,000 times.
More like 24 * 365 times.
24 * 365 times
> what it takes to dig for oil and all the steps needed to turn that into a moving car
Indeed. Petrochemicals form a fundamental physical part of all cars. And everything else. I look forward to the innovations that need to replace them.
Indeed. Petrochemicals form a fundamental physical part of all cars. And everything else. I look forward to the innovations that need to replace them.
Electric cars do not make sense to own if you are not also owning a garage where you can charge them overnight. Also, if you are unwilling to add 1+ hour(s) to your travel time on longer distances.
Is this opinion based on experience or speculation? I had a house with garage and it was nice, but I moved to an apt with street parking. I had feared it would be a pain, and I'd be lying if I said it was as convenient, but it really hasn't been very difficult. Moving the car every two weeks for street cleaning has been worse.
As for long distances, I haven't found that to be a big issue. Of course, I have a Tesla which has a very good charging network - and that's the point. For any brand other than Tesla, you're probably right. It amazes me that the legacy car companies each of which are multiples of Tesla's size don't seem to be able to come up with a solution that doesn't involve getting taxpayers involved.
As for long distances, I haven't found that to be a big issue. Of course, I have a Tesla which has a very good charging network - and that's the point. For any brand other than Tesla, you're probably right. It amazes me that the legacy car companies each of which are multiples of Tesla's size don't seem to be able to come up with a solution that doesn't involve getting taxpayers involved.
It's speculation on the part of the buyer. Why introduce more anxiety when you can just go with what you already know?
If every gas station supported CCS it would be less of an issue, but usually you need to find a station nearby and wait for 20-40 minutes if it's CCS or 6-8 hours if it's level 2.
If every gas station supported CCS it would be less of an issue, but usually you need to find a station nearby and wait for 20-40 minutes if it's CCS or 6-8 hours if it's level 2.
20 minutes every 2 - 3 hours of rare long distance driving is acceptable, considering I save 4 hours of petrol station visits per yer vs my old diesel. Not to mention the fuel cost savings.
Oh I'm not referring to road trips here, they've been mostly fine in my EV. The issue is for people without a garage or a readily accessible charger then can use. My brother lives in Brighton, MA, and to charge his car he'd need to go out of his way to find a CCS charger and then sit there for 40 minutes about once a week. It just removes an EV as an option unless he moves elsewhere.
Depends how fast your car charges. 2017 Model S 75D charges for 30-40m every ~90 minutes of driving.
It's not as bad as it sounds, or I'm lying to myself, but having the 90 minute planned stops makes a cross country trip seem a lot closer ... even though it's doing the opposite.
It's not as bad as it sounds, or I'm lying to myself, but having the 90 minute planned stops makes a cross country trip seem a lot closer ... even though it's doing the opposite.
Electric micromobility (e.g., e-bikes and scooters) probably makes more sense for more people right now. Keep an ICE vehicle for long-distance travel. But use your relatively cheap e-bike---that you can charge on a standard AC plug, even in an apartment---for short-distance chores and grocery runs.
Of course, people who live in car-only suburbs need not apply.
Of course, people who live in car-only suburbs need not apply.
Raining 300 days a year can really put a damper on things, too.
Have you been to the Netherlands?
No
Rains a lot. Pretty cold. Snows. Lots of bikes. But really nice biking infrastructure — of the kind that’s hard to imagine in places like North America.
The population density is a bit of a factor. Like I live in a region in the US that is about the same size as Netherlands by area and has about 1/50th the population. And then if you go out west the difference gets starker than that.
Of course higher density parts of the US also don't really match up with the infrastructure that exists in Netherlands, but it's not unreasonable to expect the infrastructure in a given area to scale with the number of people in that area.
Of course higher density parts of the US also don't really match up with the infrastructure that exists in Netherlands, but it's not unreasonable to expect the infrastructure in a given area to scale with the number of people in that area.
There is no such thing as bad weather, only bad preparation.
I did a 3000km trip 4 times (twice each way) during the pandemic. Charging added 15 minutes to the trip. Everybody has to eat/sleep/bathroom, and that can happen at the same time as charging.
You’re using a very unusual definition there. 3000 km is a long way and fueling up an ICE vehicle would take at least three full tanks, each one of which takes about ten minutes. Ignore sleeping, eating, and bathroom (I used to drive 1500 km in one day, three fuel stops, bathroom with that, no food - you won’t die if you don’t eat for a day). There’s no way you charged every 500 km and only paid a 15 minute penalty. Simply stopping and getting back on the highway costs about 5 minutes.
15 minutes more than it would have taken if we used a gas car. I was driving with the family. Regular stops would have been required no matter what car I had. Certainly 2 25 year olds driving in shifts with steel bladders could have made the trip quicker.
I did trip from London, UK to Southern Italy, Brindisi in Enyaq. By Google maps it should take 2 days (24 hours of driving, so 12 hours in 2 drivers/day). Charging dragged it on 4 days and we were charging on Ionity/Enel. So your 15 minutes is some kind of a sick joke.
A doubling of travel time is harsh. But I'm wondering how you managed to charge so inefficiently (time wise). Could it be, that you traveled with the smallest Škoda Enyaq which only supports up to 50kW of charging rate?
I checked your route with abetterrouteplanner.com using two different Enyaq models. One with 50kW charging and one with 100kW+. Here are the travel times:
- Enyaq iV 50 (50kW charging): 33 hours
- Enyaq iV 80 (100kW charging): 26 hours
- Google Maps (w/o charging time): 22,5 hours
I think you just had the wrong car model for this kind of trip.
I checked your route with abetterrouteplanner.com using two different Enyaq models. One with 50kW charging and one with 100kW+. Here are the travel times:
- Enyaq iV 50 (50kW charging): 33 hours
- Enyaq iV 80 (100kW charging): 26 hours
- Google Maps (w/o charging time): 22,5 hours
I think you just had the wrong car model for this kind of trip.
I have Enyaq iv80. Charging rate means nothing when there are chargers in France which just won't give you juice because reasons. So then you need to slowly crawl to another charger like a clown to have even chance to get there.
Additionally it was during December, so cold weather reduced range even more, therefore your estimation would be correct but for summer time.
Additionally it was during December, so cold weather reduced range even more, therefore your estimation would be correct but for summer time.
My experience riding over 37k km in less than a year all around Europe with my Tesla Model Y hasn't been any like it (many trips, including from The Hague to Malmö, The Hague to Berlin, The Hague to Budapest passing by Vienna, and more trips than I can count to Belgium, twice to Switzerland, and also all the way South to Barcelona).
I think your car model isn't very appropriate for long distance travels, as most EVs. But there are some EVs out there that definitely can do it, especially all Teslas.
I think your car model isn't very appropriate for long distance travels, as most EVs. But there are some EVs out there that definitely can do it, especially all Teslas.
That is part of the problem though. With petrol, you can hop into anyone old car, and go where you want, as much as you want. With 5 minute stops every few hundred miles
That's ridiculous. My trip was from Ottawa Canada to Saskatoon. It goes through some seriously unpopulated territory, unlike yours. It does follow major highways, so there are Tesla superchargers along the route every 100-150 km or so. We'd stay at a hotel with charging overnight so start at 100%, drive for 2.5 hours and then bathroom/charge for 15-20 mins, drive another 2.5 and eat/charge for 40 or so, repeat the morning pattern in the afternoon, and then drive for another couple after supper before stopping at a hotel to charge while sleeping.
So you're not charging back up to 100% until the overnight stop?
When I think about how I would do a long trip in an EV, I envision getting a full charge, because first, that's what I currently do with gasoline, and second, I want as much range as possible to account for unplanned detours and/or other unexpected issues.
When I think about how I would do a long trip in an EV, I envision getting a full charge, because first, that's what I currently do with gasoline, and second, I want as much range as possible to account for unplanned detours and/or other unexpected issues.
Once or twice we did hit 100% because supper took longer than expected, but otherwise you never charge to 100%.
A critical component is the trip computer that knows about upcoming construction and charger status. On our first trip the Sault Ste Marie charger was down, and Sault Ste Marie <-> WaWa is the longest stretch between chargers because of a huge provincial park. But the car warned us about it and told us to make sure we were above 90% at Blind River.
A critical component is the trip computer that knows about upcoming construction and charger status. On our first trip the Sault Ste Marie charger was down, and Sault Ste Marie <-> WaWa is the longest stretch between chargers because of a huge provincial park. But the car warned us about it and told us to make sure we were above 90% at Blind River.
AFAIK the charging rate slows down as the battery gets fuller. That's why all the fast charging metrics are like "30 minutes to charge to 60%" rather than "60 minutes to charge to 100%". So on a trip where you want to spend as little time charging, you want to stop charging before 100%.
Canada has some good charging infrastructure. If you are driving a Tesla, even better, super chargers are the gold standard for EV charging, everything else is kind of unreliable.
I just watched this Tom Scott video this morning about a Chinese company that created a "pod" where you can replace the battery instead of charging it.
https://youtu.be/hNZy603as5w
You can buy the car and rent the battery. Each time you need to "recharge", you change it.
https://youtu.be/hNZy603as5w
You can buy the car and rent the battery. Each time you need to "recharge", you change it.
There have been several attempts to make battery swapping for cars a thing. This includes Tesla's attempt and another company that went bankrupt. For some reason, it does not seem to work out and they all stop trying it.
I bet the reason it doesn't work out is greed and that everyone is doing their own incompatible system. Gas/petrol would also not work out if every car brand had their own unique & incompatible composition of fuel.
This is something that governments could solve. Commission a decent swappable battery form-factor and offer tax rebates & incentives to both buyers of compatible vehicles (thus incentivizes manufacturers to make those vehicles) as well as gas stations to adopt the system.
It doesn't have to be perfect performance-wise, if battery swaps take 5 minutes and every gas station supports it, it'll still be good even if the effective range of such battery is half of a custom proprietary one's.
This is something that governments could solve. Commission a decent swappable battery form-factor and offer tax rebates & incentives to both buyers of compatible vehicles (thus incentivizes manufacturers to make those vehicles) as well as gas stations to adopt the system.
It doesn't have to be perfect performance-wise, if battery swaps take 5 minutes and every gas station supports it, it'll still be good even if the effective range of such battery is half of a custom proprietary one's.
Nio currently has around 2,000 battery swap stations in china. They seem much farther along than the people that gave up.
But you have to keep in mind that it's heavily subsidized by china and is more than likely just burning money
Over 60% of homes in America are single family homes so it sounds like carmakers can sell plenty of EVs.
There are 1.88 vehicles per household in the US so it seems like many American households could have one of those vehicles be an EV while the other is gasoline for longer trips if they need that functionality so badly.
The range anxiety thing is so overblown, too. Driving 300 miles at 60mph average is 5 full hours of driving. That’s so much.
If you assume that EVs are barely doing 200 miles of real condition range that’s still over 3 hours of driving before you need to stop at all.
And then if you are going much longer than 500 miles it starts to make more sense to fly in the US. For a family of four you can’t make a trip from Ohio to Orlando make financial sense in a car, like, at all. The airfare is too low and the car travel time is too high.
There are 1.88 vehicles per household in the US so it seems like many American households could have one of those vehicles be an EV while the other is gasoline for longer trips if they need that functionality so badly.
The range anxiety thing is so overblown, too. Driving 300 miles at 60mph average is 5 full hours of driving. That’s so much.
If you assume that EVs are barely doing 200 miles of real condition range that’s still over 3 hours of driving before you need to stop at all.
And then if you are going much longer than 500 miles it starts to make more sense to fly in the US. For a family of four you can’t make a trip from Ohio to Orlando make financial sense in a car, like, at all. The airfare is too low and the car travel time is too high.
Not if the municipality is installing enough low speed but cheap charging spots in the street parking. That’s working in some European countries at least
Also cost... They aren't worth more than a gas car
and if your average distance is below 20km (and if it is they should consider moving)
In the UK, most people don't pay the "sticker" cost for a car. They take out a PCP or similar plan. Pay £X00 per month for Y months. At the end of the period, either buy the vehicle outright or hand it back. Or, as many people do, switch to a new vehicle.
That's why you see so many expensive cars driven by people who can't afford them. No one is paying the up-front cost. They splurge their disposable income on a motor and treat it like a mobile phone - upgrade it every few years.
A VW eUP (an electric vehicle) is about £200pcm. The new Mini is about £300pcm. Those are comparable with ICE vehicles.
That's why you see so many expensive cars driven by people who can't afford them. No one is paying the up-front cost. They splurge their disposable income on a motor and treat it like a mobile phone - upgrade it every few years.
A VW eUP (an electric vehicle) is about £200pcm. The new Mini is about £300pcm. Those are comparable with ICE vehicles.
I didn’t realise until recently just how engrained this practice is in people’s behaviour.
I was discussing cars with someone not long ago and they were really matter-of-fact about switching to a new car just because the dealership offered it to them. It came across very much as that’s just how it works and everyone does that.
I was discussing cars with someone not long ago and they were really matter-of-fact about switching to a new car just because the dealership offered it to them. It came across very much as that’s just how it works and everyone does that.
I wonder do any of them realise they’re paying the maximum depreciation every single time too. Losing 20k+ in depreciation every year feels like a great way to stay poor
On the flip side, using PCP means that you get a brand new car and it has a warrantee. You could buy a banger for £500 - but then you're always going to be wondering if today is the day it'll cost you £££ to repair. And if you can't get in to work, that'll cost you dearly as well.
£300 per month to basically not have to worry about any unexpected bills seems reasonable to me.
Plus you get the social value of having a "nice" car. The safety features are likely to be higher quality. And, as mentioned in the article, newer vehicles tend to be more efficient.
Basically, it is a fairly rational way to spend money.
£300 per month to basically not have to worry about any unexpected bills seems reasonable to me.
Plus you get the social value of having a "nice" car. The safety features are likely to be higher quality. And, as mentioned in the article, newer vehicles tend to be more efficient.
Basically, it is a fairly rational way to spend money.
People here in the US do the same bad math. Leasing is almost always worse even than buying with a loan.
in my city at least, this PCP concept hasnt really taken off because companies arent offering it.
what the people have done informally is something similar.
1. person "buys" a car and Hypothecates the same to a bank for paying the car dealer. usually 80-90-100% of the car value can be paid by bank meaning 0-10-20% of the car value can be given as deposit.
2. now that the new "owner" has taken the car, they start making monthly EMI payments to bank.
3. 1 year or 2 years from purchase, the owner wants to "sell" the car so what they do is, find a buyer willing to accept the outstanding loan amount.
4. the first "owner" has paid 2 things. 1 deposit and say 12 months of EMI.
5. first "owner" tells the buyer that "here, take hold of these future EMI entries and give me a portion of the amount i have paid till now as in #4"
6. the first "owner" takes cheques each dated monthly in future with the amount from the buyer which the first "owner" will deposit every month and if there is any failure, claim default in payment of cheque.
7. car remains in title of the first owner and Hypothecated by bank until last EMI is paid at which point the first owner "transfers" the car to new owner
what the people have done informally is something similar.
1. person "buys" a car and Hypothecates the same to a bank for paying the car dealer. usually 80-90-100% of the car value can be paid by bank meaning 0-10-20% of the car value can be given as deposit.
2. now that the new "owner" has taken the car, they start making monthly EMI payments to bank.
3. 1 year or 2 years from purchase, the owner wants to "sell" the car so what they do is, find a buyer willing to accept the outstanding loan amount.
4. the first "owner" has paid 2 things. 1 deposit and say 12 months of EMI.
5. first "owner" tells the buyer that "here, take hold of these future EMI entries and give me a portion of the amount i have paid till now as in #4"
6. the first "owner" takes cheques each dated monthly in future with the amount from the buyer which the first "owner" will deposit every month and if there is any failure, claim default in payment of cheque.
7. car remains in title of the first owner and Hypothecated by bank until last EMI is paid at which point the first owner "transfers" the car to new owner
You don’t have to buy a banger, just buy a new car and drive it for 20 years. You will save vast amounts of momey.
Or buy lightly used car and then drive 20 years... The savings for getting one or two years old car is already substantial.
I did this and now I'm stuck with manual Kia... But I don't really drive enough to care, so I'm fine...
I did this and now I'm stuck with manual Kia... But I don't really drive enough to care, so I'm fine...
Same difference, after 7-10 years, it becomes a banger, or at least it has enough problems that you worry.
Maybe if you buy British cars?
Everyone I know driving 100k+ 10y+ cars from reliable manufacturers have no issues beyond regular maintenance.
My father's Benz certainly spends more time in the shop though.
Everyone I know driving 100k+ 10y+ cars from reliable manufacturers have no issues beyond regular maintenance.
My father's Benz certainly spends more time in the shop though.
I bought a new (made in Japan) Mitsubishi in 2013, still have it, and it didn't have any failure yet whatsoever. If you buy German, American or (shudder) French cars, then yeah, they will become problematic after 7-10 years, or even earlier. Just buy Japanese (so, not Nissan, and sadly also no longer Mitsubishi, since, after a merger, it's now a Japanese-European company), preferably made in Japan.
I have a car I bought on PCP so I understand that math, but when the dealers starts calling after one year trying to get you to re-up it’s a poor decision financially
Our car was £40k new. We've been paying £400/month for 2.5 years now. It's a 4 year lease. We still owe £22k. They gave us £7k for our old car - that was the difference between how much we owed and how much previous car was worth. Now the latest one we can buy for around £18k once the lease is up I think. Currently I'm being offered £31k for it. So, rough calculation is that the car cost us £120/month in the last 2.5 years if we sell it today. Pretty good deal I think.
Of course we realise we're paying for depreciation but I consider a car to be a fixed expense and honestly if you take a look at the numbers above it's not that bad and we drive a new, safe, no issues (free servicing) car every 3-4 years.
Of course we realise we're paying for depreciation but I consider a car to be a fixed expense and honestly if you take a look at the numbers above it's not that bad and we drive a new, safe, no issues (free servicing) car every 3-4 years.
> if you take a look at the numbers above it's not that bad and we drive a new, safe, no issues (free servicing) car every 3-4 years.
Driving a new car every few years is incredibly decadent.
If you bought a car, paid it off in 5 years and drove it for another 10, you’d be saving thousands every year. Repeat that cycle every 15 years and invest the savings, and you’re talking about hundreds of thousands of dollars in trade-off costs over the course of a lifetime. That might be a reasonable trade-off for folks who are in great shape financially (I’ll certainly be doing it once retirement is funded!), but it’s pure foolishness for the average household.
Driving a new car every few years is incredibly decadent.
If you bought a car, paid it off in 5 years and drove it for another 10, you’d be saving thousands every year. Repeat that cycle every 15 years and invest the savings, and you’re talking about hundreds of thousands of dollars in trade-off costs over the course of a lifetime. That might be a reasonable trade-off for folks who are in great shape financially (I’ll certainly be doing it once retirement is funded!), but it’s pure foolishness for the average household.
As per my calculations our two latest cars cost us around £200/month. That is £2400 per year or £24000 per 10 years. Pretty good for cars costing £30k and £40k new. Buying the same cars and driving them for 15 years would actually cost the same or more. We were lucky as prices of second hand cars were good so we actually came ahead. This might change in the future.
[deleted]
> drove it for another 10
What about maintenance? There's a lot of moving parts (often the labor to get to the part costs more than the part itself) and a stroke of bad luck can quickly balloon into 4-digit sums.
Paying a flat monthly fee for transport sounds like an attractive option to not have to worry about any of that.
What about maintenance? There's a lot of moving parts (often the labor to get to the part costs more than the part itself) and a stroke of bad luck can quickly balloon into 4-digit sums.
Paying a flat monthly fee for transport sounds like an attractive option to not have to worry about any of that.
Maintenance costs are easily managed by avoiding brands which generally require frequent or expensive maintenance. Regardless, they don’t hold a candle to the long term savings.
If one lacks the rainy-day savings to afford a hypothetical thousand-dollar repair bill, one certainly cannot afford to throw away thousands of dollars every year “to not have to worry” about one’s precarious finances.
If one lacks the rainy-day savings to afford a hypothetical thousand-dollar repair bill, one certainly cannot afford to throw away thousands of dollars every year “to not have to worry” about one’s precarious finances.
And yet so many people "can afford" £300 pcm but "couldn't afford" a yearly unexpected maintenance bill of £2000. Even though the latter is half the cost. It's inability to financially plan over more than a monthly horizon. I think it's because financial literacy is not taught. Or is it just human nature that it's harder to choose to put £200 aside every month for future possible repairs than to pay a £300 monthly bill you have no choice over.
> one certainly cannot afford to throw away thousands of dollars every year “to not have to worry” about one’s precarious finances.
There are plenty of people who live near paycheck-to-paycheck who also need a car to get to work, where a stroke of bad luck like engine + transmission damage would not only be a significant financial hit but the downtime of the car being unavailable might compound the problem as they can't get to work.
While it's not a great financial situation and ideally nobody should be in it, in reality these people don't have a choice and budgeting away a fixed percentage of their salary on a vehicle that guarantees them to be able to get to work (to pocket the remaining percentage of salary) is a better option than not paying a monthly fee but gambling on the fact that a significant breakdown might completely wipe them out financially and jeopardize the transportation they use to get to work.
It's a bit like insurance - technically it should always be cheaper to self-insure, but insurance exists because for many people perpetually paying the premium is still better than a single event wiping them out completely.
There are plenty of people who live near paycheck-to-paycheck who also need a car to get to work, where a stroke of bad luck like engine + transmission damage would not only be a significant financial hit but the downtime of the car being unavailable might compound the problem as they can't get to work.
While it's not a great financial situation and ideally nobody should be in it, in reality these people don't have a choice and budgeting away a fixed percentage of their salary on a vehicle that guarantees them to be able to get to work (to pocket the remaining percentage of salary) is a better option than not paying a monthly fee but gambling on the fact that a significant breakdown might completely wipe them out financially and jeopardize the transportation they use to get to work.
It's a bit like insurance - technically it should always be cheaper to self-insure, but insurance exists because for many people perpetually paying the premium is still better than a single event wiping them out completely.
> While it's not a great financial situation and ideally nobody should be in it, in reality these people don't have a choice and budgeting away a fixed percentage of their salary on a vehicle that guarantees them to be able to get to work (to pocket the remaining percentage of salary) is a better option than not paying a monthly fee but gambling on the fact that a significant breakdown might completely wipe them out financially and jeopardize the transportation they use to get to work.
This makes sense so long as it isn't used as an argument for leasing a new car on an ongoing basis. If one actually finds themselves in this situation, the responsible approach would be to find the cheapest possible lease and to save aggressively until they can take the more economical approach.
Leasing is like credit card debt. It makes sense in some rare cases, but in most cases it is wasteful and the average consumer should avoid it.
This makes sense so long as it isn't used as an argument for leasing a new car on an ongoing basis. If one actually finds themselves in this situation, the responsible approach would be to find the cheapest possible lease and to save aggressively until they can take the more economical approach.
Leasing is like credit card debt. It makes sense in some rare cases, but in most cases it is wasteful and the average consumer should avoid it.
This is exactly it. Worry free transport option. We have a set monthly budget for transport and we get whatever car is we think best available for our budget when lease is up. I never have to worry about service, the car is always in warranty, etc.
I'm driving a 900£ focus, cost me 200£ to service once a year, otherwise it's just ticking a long great...
I didn't realise how pervasive this was, but yes 90% of new car purchases are using a PCP.
https://www.thecarexpert.co.uk/car-finance-pcp-explained/
https://www.thecarexpert.co.uk/car-finance-pcp-explained/
I'm pretty sure finance is what has driven up the costs of a typical car. Parkers (the car valuation people) had an article recently that showed the median price of a car has gone up by twice the rate of inflation over the last 50 years. The price has tracked earnings which tends to indicate people will buy as much car as they can afford.
Didn't know leasing was popular outside the US. That's how a great majority of luxury cars are acquired here. To be fair, given how their asset price depreciates and repair demands increase over time, leasing makes a lot of sense.
>> That's why you see so many expensive cars driven by people who can't afford them
How is it possible to keep possession of the car if you’re not paying the contractual obligation? Is there some exception for cars?
For example, failing to keep up with mortgage payments will eventually see you lose the property.
How is it possible to keep possession of the car if you’re not paying the contractual obligation? Is there some exception for cars?
For example, failing to keep up with mortgage payments will eventually see you lose the property.
OP meant "can't afford them" in the sense of "couldn't afford the full price of". There are lots of people here in the UK on medium incomes driving around in £80,000 cars using this finance
How do the economics work out for the seller? Depreciation is highest at the beginning, when these people are paying the per month price. If they can't afford a loan for the price of the car, how are they making a lease payment that covers the depreciation for the leasor? I'm sure there's a reason but I can't think of it.
I don't think you understand how car loans work?
Let's say a car costs $50,000 and Joe wants to finance it (because he either doesn't have $50,000 or just doesn't want to spend $50,000 right now), so he gets a $50,000 loan to buy it. Let's also say the loan will mature in 10 years, also obviously the loan has interest but we don't need a specific number for this conversation.
The minimum payment per month will be set such that Joe will pay off the loan in 10 years, and Joe presumably can afford the loan's minimum monthly payments since he accepted it to buy that new car.
If Joe wants to pay off the loan sooner and he can afford it, he can just pay more than the minimum due during a given month.
So Joe gets a loan from a bank (oftentimes middleman'd by the dealership), the bank pays the dealer in full, Joe gets his car, the bank becomes the lienholder on the car until the loan is paid off.
Let's say a car costs $50,000 and Joe wants to finance it (because he either doesn't have $50,000 or just doesn't want to spend $50,000 right now), so he gets a $50,000 loan to buy it. Let's also say the loan will mature in 10 years, also obviously the loan has interest but we don't need a specific number for this conversation.
The minimum payment per month will be set such that Joe will pay off the loan in 10 years, and Joe presumably can afford the loan's minimum monthly payments since he accepted it to buy that new car.
If Joe wants to pay off the loan sooner and he can afford it, he can just pay more than the minimum due during a given month.
So Joe gets a loan from a bank (oftentimes middleman'd by the dealership), the bank pays the dealer in full, Joe gets his car, the bank becomes the lienholder on the car until the loan is paid off.
Thanks! Indeed I've always paid cash for any new cars I've bought. But I still don't see how companies that provide leases are able to purchase a car, lease it out for cheaper than the cost of a loan to people who couldn't afford the loan, and still make money despite the depreciation?
Imagine a car that costs 50,000 - a 10 year loan will be 500 or so per month according to https://www.calculator.net/auto-loan-calculator.html.
If I want to buy a car and lease it out to make money, but charge half that much so people who can't afford it can still get it, then let's say I charge 250/month. It would take 17 years of leasing it at the rate that it was worth when it was new in order to just break even and get my outlay on the car back.
So it's possible that I'm missing something else key about how car loans work but the numbers don't seem to add up for the leasor that your market is people who can't afford a car loan. Even https://www.bankrate.com/loans/auto-loans/lease-vs-buy-calcu... seems to indicate that you pay a little less for the loan than leasing, so I'm still not getting how leasing is the budget option that helps people get a car they can't otherwise afford a loan for.
EDIT: the answer is here: https://www.thecarexpert.co.uk/car-finance-pcp-explained/. Apparently in the UK, leases work with a small monthly payment, but at the end of the lease term there's a gigantic balloon payment where you pay back the difference between your cheap payments until then and what you actually would have owed if you had a normal lease or loan the whole time - thus making the leasor whole. The system is designed such that the leasor will always have received the cost of depreciation (plus more) at any point in the term.
Imagine a car that costs 50,000 - a 10 year loan will be 500 or so per month according to https://www.calculator.net/auto-loan-calculator.html.
If I want to buy a car and lease it out to make money, but charge half that much so people who can't afford it can still get it, then let's say I charge 250/month. It would take 17 years of leasing it at the rate that it was worth when it was new in order to just break even and get my outlay on the car back.
So it's possible that I'm missing something else key about how car loans work but the numbers don't seem to add up for the leasor that your market is people who can't afford a car loan. Even https://www.bankrate.com/loans/auto-loans/lease-vs-buy-calcu... seems to indicate that you pay a little less for the loan than leasing, so I'm still not getting how leasing is the budget option that helps people get a car they can't otherwise afford a loan for.
EDIT: the answer is here: https://www.thecarexpert.co.uk/car-finance-pcp-explained/. Apparently in the UK, leases work with a small monthly payment, but at the end of the lease term there's a gigantic balloon payment where you pay back the difference between your cheap payments until then and what you actually would have owed if you had a normal lease or loan the whole time - thus making the leasor whole. The system is designed such that the leasor will always have received the cost of depreciation (plus more) at any point in the term.
Answering from a US point of view... Generally, the total cost of leasing a car is going to be more than the total cost to buy a car on a loan and resell the car in the same time period. In a perfect market, I think the difference in the total cost of loan versus lease is essentially the value of transferring risk from the consumer to the lessor as to whether the car retains its anticipated residual value at the end of the term.
With a loan, the buyer pays off the principal and interest and absorbs any discrepancy between the resale value and the remaining debt. With a lease, the lessor absorbs the discrepancy as long as the consumer meets the other stipulations of the lease, such as mileage limits and maintenance. The lessor acts almost like an insurer to charge fees and absorb this risk across a whole fleet of cars.
With a loan, the buyer pays off the principal and interest and absorbs any discrepancy between the resale value and the remaining debt. With a lease, the lessor absorbs the discrepancy as long as the consumer meets the other stipulations of the lease, such as mileage limits and maintenance. The lessor acts almost like an insurer to charge fees and absorb this risk across a whole fleet of cars.
Are cars ridiculously overpriced in the UK? GBP 80000 is USD 101000 right now, which is basically high-end sports cars or a Mercedes S class or BMW 7 series. I’m a very high earner and have never paid USD 70000 for a car.
Not to be too pedantic about it but that’s not what “can’t afford them” means.
Can confirm. Financial literacy is fairly thin on the ground here.
I think what parent is saying is people lease or finance cars so they can drive cars they wouldn't be able to afford in full. That is, those people can afford the monthly payments but cannot afford paying the sticker price.
An easier to understand example would be how most people finance iPhones with their carrier. Most people balk at paying one or two grand for a phone, but don't mind paying ~$50 per month. At the end of the loan when they pay off the balance, or maybe even before that if the carrier offers, they upgrade to the next new iPhone.
An easier to understand example would be how most people finance iPhones with their carrier. Most people balk at paying one or two grand for a phone, but don't mind paying ~$50 per month. At the end of the loan when they pay off the balance, or maybe even before that if the carrier offers, they upgrade to the next new iPhone.
Which also seems a bit wild to me.
I won’t buy a new phone let alone a new car.
I won’t buy a new phone let alone a new car.
I only new because buying new means I do not have to worry about its history, it comes with manufacturer warranty.
Buying used is rolling the dice on whether I end up with a Hangar Queen demanding attention I don't want to give.
Time is money, as the saying goes. Buying new is more expensive, but it's cheaper in the long run with the time and money I did not have to waste on unexpected upkeep.
Buying used is rolling the dice on whether I end up with a Hangar Queen demanding attention I don't want to give.
Time is money, as the saying goes. Buying new is more expensive, but it's cheaper in the long run with the time and money I did not have to waste on unexpected upkeep.
>Buying new is more expensive, but it's cheaper in the long run with the time and money I did not have to waste on unexpected upkeep.
It depends. We tend to buy three year old cars and on the whole they have all the niggles resolved by then. After that they don't start having problems until at least 100,000 miles. So we pay half the price for no extra aggravation.
It depends. We tend to buy three year old cars and on the whole they have all the niggles resolved by then. After that they don't start having problems until at least 100,000 miles. So we pay half the price for no extra aggravation.
Doesn’t need to be need for manufacturer warranty.
My certified preowned car actually came with slightly more miles and a slightly longer manufacturer warranty than a new model would have.
My certified preowned car actually came with slightly more miles and a slightly longer manufacturer warranty than a new model would have.
There is lot of models one here in different country could be:
Down payment x000
Monthly payment for x months x00
And then final payment xx000 after x months. But the seller has calculated it as such that they can buy it back and get the more by selling it.
So in the end "buyer" only pays for the depreciation and interest, which were low in previously. Much harder model now that cost of loaning has gone up. Quite a lot of people can afford to pay hundreds a month, even if that really doesn't make long term sense...
Down payment x000
Monthly payment for x months x00
And then final payment xx000 after x months. But the seller has calculated it as such that they can buy it back and get the more by selling it.
So in the end "buyer" only pays for the depreciation and interest, which were low in previously. Much harder model now that cost of loaning has gone up. Quite a lot of people can afford to pay hundreds a month, even if that really doesn't make long term sense...
Answer: yes. The article concedes that TCO over the lifetime of the vehicle is only just at parity with the middle of the petrol car range, the upfront cost is higher, insurance costs tend to be higher, and on top of that you have “range anxiety” to worry about.
There are certainly pros to electric cars, but as yet price is not one.
There are certainly pros to electric cars, but as yet price is not one.
The crucial aspect here is “yet.” Most car makers are on their very first foray into EV, but have been perfecting efficiencies in ICE for many decades. The summary judgement articles and whatnot declaring EV dead on arrival ignore that ICE marginal improvements are slow and expensive, while EV marginal improvements are fast and cheap. How long until EV are cheaper and more reliable? I’ll wager in the span of 5 years. Then over the equivalent span of ICE dominance EV will continue to improve to a platform that will make ICE look like horse buggies.
As you say, The crucial aspect here is “yet” meaning at the moment, no. In the future, maybe yes, maybe still no.
Until and if that day comes, then yes. But right now it's no. Speculation is speculation.
Until and if that day comes, then yes. But right now it's no. Speculation is speculation.
No, as an EV owner I’m 98% confident ICE is over. The age of fire is ending and the age of maxwells equations is upon us.
ICE is fundamentally too complex. The primary issue in EV is battery tech, and that is advancing so rapidly with so much investment that the 5 year roadmap of CATL and others already addresses almost all the issues, and there’s a ton of wildcard battery tech looming with intense interest.
There’s nothing on the roadmap on ICE. There is no roadmap, just entrenched interests.
ICE is fundamentally too complex. The primary issue in EV is battery tech, and that is advancing so rapidly with so much investment that the 5 year roadmap of CATL and others already addresses almost all the issues, and there’s a ton of wildcard battery tech looming with intense interest.
There’s nothing on the roadmap on ICE. There is no roadmap, just entrenched interests.
Right, but we’re not talking about the tech, we’re talking about price. For at least the next 25 years, for a lot of people, the significant up-front cost of buying an EV will push them to keep older ICE vehicles on life support in a Captain Vimes’s boots sort of way.
Oh, price today is entirely margin related and poisoning the well by the ICE career attached people at major car makers. Everyone wants Tesla margins so is charging Tesla prices, and the ICE career aligned execs are intentionally pushing the ICE will be affordable narrative.
BYD, MG, and other Chinese EV makers are already eating ICE makers alive in Asia and creeping into Europe. Nothing about EV is necessarily expensive - they’re very simple devices, no part is exotic, and most of the current price is baked into fit and finish plus heavy margins.
ICE cars are genuinely amazing machines of precision mastery. They’re complex and difficult to make. The only reason they’re cheap is scale and long established supply chains. But if you reduced their complexity by 80-90% like with an EV, the scale and maturity of supply chain required to overtake ICE is not 25 years to establish. It’s more like 3-4.
BYD, MG, and other Chinese EV makers are already eating ICE makers alive in Asia and creeping into Europe. Nothing about EV is necessarily expensive - they’re very simple devices, no part is exotic, and most of the current price is baked into fit and finish plus heavy margins.
ICE cars are genuinely amazing machines of precision mastery. They’re complex and difficult to make. The only reason they’re cheap is scale and long established supply chains. But if you reduced their complexity by 80-90% like with an EV, the scale and maturity of supply chain required to overtake ICE is not 25 years to establish. It’s more like 3-4.
Are Tesla’s margins really that great? I know their stock keeps going up but in terms of revenue vs costs, I didn’t think they were that much better than any other luxury car brand-although I accept on reflection that I can’t identify why I think that, which probably means it’s not based on anything.
Regardless of supply chain maturity and so on, I think you are wrong that the average family is less than 4 years away from a new car though.
Regardless of supply chain maturity and so on, I think you are wrong that the average family is less than 4 years away from a new car though.
It is not only this. For me it is public greenwashing, that 'modern is always better' fallacy, subsidies (follow the money!), environmental impact of battery components, daily and seasonal inconveniences, even more SW instead of easily repairable mechanical parts, being forced by a vocal minority tru tax, social, and other penalties, etc. etc.
Offer me an Hyuandai N74 and we'll talk.
Offer me an Hyuandai N74 and we'll talk.
As an aside since we're apparently bringing out the woodworks here, why is it that nearly all electric vehicles look like crap?
Seriously, their designs are nearly all terrible compared to gas/diesel cars.
Seriously, their designs are nearly all terrible compared to gas/diesel cars.
They need to incorporate a large, heavy battery that needs to sit at the bottom of the vehicle for stability. That means a large footprint to keep a low roofline, or a high roofline for a smaller footprint. All EVs must work battery and range into their aesthetics, and it's a design imposition. The Tesla Roadster looked good, but it was a based on a Lotus ICE and traded interior space for aesthetics, as well as limited range: too impractical for most.
The Prius looks dull because it's tuned for ultimate efficiency while also paying a small roofline/footprint penalty for its battery in aesthetics. It would be interesting to see what a max efficiency ICE Prius would be like. I bet it could do high 30's mpg, maybe even 40, would look better, and be substantially cheaper.
The Prius looks dull because it's tuned for ultimate efficiency while also paying a small roofline/footprint penalty for its battery in aesthetics. It would be interesting to see what a max efficiency ICE Prius would be like. I bet it could do high 30's mpg, maybe even 40, would look better, and be substantially cheaper.
This is one of my biggest complaints. Many EVs look like they are EVs. I want an EV that looks like a car.
The e-golf is certainly the most modest EV i've seen around
Renault Zoes look like regular cars too.
I suspect it was started by the Toyota Pius which was designed to look different so everyone would know how good you were.
But Teslas look like cars to me, so I think the era of “it’s electric so it has to look weird” is at its end.
But Teslas look like cars to me, so I think the era of “it’s electric so it has to look weird” is at its end.
New ICE cars increasingly have the same reliance on software. The lifetime of all cars will be capped by software support - particularly as they become more network connected.
Expensive only in EU and US. In China, VW has to sell cars for 16K, which are sold in EU/US for 35K - 45K. Legacy carmakers don't know how to make electric cars, rely on regulatory capture to keep prices high.
VW cut prices of ID.3 down to $16,500 in China, while in Europe the same vehicle starts at nearly $43,000: https://www.arenaev.com/volkswagen_cuts_id3_price_in_china__...
China reveals just how bad things are for Toyota, GM and VW: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WBV9FQvuss
In US, there are good deals to be found. I have a Nissan Leaf on a 2 year lease at $99/month. In the past decade, there were so many who took advantage of $69 - $89/month lease + additional cash back from state/utility/air quality rebates. Folks could buy them from 6K - 10K at the end of the lease. These deals may not be around anymore, but there are leases always available under 300. I see 2023 Hyundai Ioniq 6 for $229 and several others under $300: https://insideevs.com/features/410039/best-electric-car-deal...
VW cut prices of ID.3 down to $16,500 in China, while in Europe the same vehicle starts at nearly $43,000: https://www.arenaev.com/volkswagen_cuts_id3_price_in_china__...
China reveals just how bad things are for Toyota, GM and VW: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WBV9FQvuss
In US, there are good deals to be found. I have a Nissan Leaf on a 2 year lease at $99/month. In the past decade, there were so many who took advantage of $69 - $89/month lease + additional cash back from state/utility/air quality rebates. Folks could buy them from 6K - 10K at the end of the lease. These deals may not be around anymore, but there are leases always available under 300. I see 2023 Hyundai Ioniq 6 for $229 and several others under $300: https://insideevs.com/features/410039/best-electric-car-deal...
Is there a reason nobody is taking on this arbitrage opportunity? Such a huge price difference should cover the cost of transporting the physical car and leave still plenty of margin for everyone (including the buyer) to get a good deal.
The arbitraged car would not be certified to comply with US/EU automotive standards, and therefore would be illegal to drive on a public road. You could only drive it on private land or put it up for display in a museum.
Most EU countries have 'single type approvals' - in the UK that gets you a vehicle with a 'Q' vehicle registration mark. More difficult to sell, harder to insure but in theory an EU spec vehicle sold without the CE paperwork should fly through the inspection.
There isnt an arbitrage opportunity. the US and EU have missive tariffs on chinese cars which makes this not worth it.
It's a very specific perspective to assume that the sticker price is relevant.
Almost no-one I know owns a new car regardless of their income bracket. 5-10 years old is the norm. Many have cars that are just on the cusp of the emissions regulations (approx 15-20 year old petrol car in London).
A car that costs 3K is perfectly serviceable, you can drive across the country with it. I don't think I could find an electric car with even a 200 mile range for less than five times that.
Since the Ukraine war electricity has been more expensive than petrol too.
Almost no-one I know owns a new car regardless of their income bracket. 5-10 years old is the norm. Many have cars that are just on the cusp of the emissions regulations (approx 15-20 year old petrol car in London).
A car that costs 3K is perfectly serviceable, you can drive across the country with it. I don't think I could find an electric car with even a 200 mile range for less than five times that.
Since the Ukraine war electricity has been more expensive than petrol too.
I totally agree with you. When I’m thinking about switching to, say Tesla X, I need to explain myself how that could be cheaper during lifetime (how long is that by the way?)? The sticker tag is 10 times of the money I paid for my used one and on top of that insurance will cost as much as another used one. Only the first year of owning Tesla x will cost as eleven cars like I have now.
But that comparison would be more fair if I will compare with used Tesla. Not too many around though.
But that comparison would be more fair if I will compare with used Tesla. Not too many around though.
"Politicians in Europe know they will eventually have to impose taxes on electricity (or else raise income taxes)"
I heard that a lot, but are we sure about this?
Petrol in Europe is taxed at about 50%, but is almost exclusively imported, thus this is the only income for gouvernements.
Electricity, on the other side, is also taxed (about 25% here in Belgium). But's it's almost entirely produced in the Union, which creates additional income and thus taxes. In the end the government income generated by electricity production is most probably around 50% too.
Add to that the external costs of petrol cars that electric cars don't have (at least not as much), such as the huge impact of pollution on the healthcare sector, climate change, or the negative import balance caused by the import of fossil fuel... And it might well be that electric vehicles will be a better deal overall tax wise.
I heard that a lot, but are we sure about this?
Petrol in Europe is taxed at about 50%, but is almost exclusively imported, thus this is the only income for gouvernements.
Electricity, on the other side, is also taxed (about 25% here in Belgium). But's it's almost entirely produced in the Union, which creates additional income and thus taxes. In the end the government income generated by electricity production is most probably around 50% too.
Add to that the external costs of petrol cars that electric cars don't have (at least not as much), such as the huge impact of pollution on the healthcare sector, climate change, or the negative import balance caused by the import of fossil fuel... And it might well be that electric vehicles will be a better deal overall tax wise.
Petrol taxes include road tax in a lot of places, that will have to be replaced somehow once the share of electric cars becomes big enough.
Which countries do that? (Genuinely curious)
Here in the UK, there's a lot of drivers who believe that road tax exists (not since 1937) and whilst there's a similar concept with VED (Vehicle Excise Duty), it's not used used specifically for fixing roads - that comes from general taxation.
Due to the misinformation, we sometimes get EV drivers complaining about cyclists because "they don't pay road tax", whereas EV owners don't even pay VED as it's based on tailpipe emissions. This means that cyclists (and pedestrians etc) are in effect subsidising the heavy vehicle drivers and helping to pay for the damage that heavy vehicles cause to the roads (roughly proportional to the fourth power of weight of the vehicle).
Here in the UK, there's a lot of drivers who believe that road tax exists (not since 1937) and whilst there's a similar concept with VED (Vehicle Excise Duty), it's not used used specifically for fixing roads - that comes from general taxation.
Due to the misinformation, we sometimes get EV drivers complaining about cyclists because "they don't pay road tax", whereas EV owners don't even pay VED as it's based on tailpipe emissions. This means that cyclists (and pedestrians etc) are in effect subsidising the heavy vehicle drivers and helping to pay for the damage that heavy vehicles cause to the roads (roughly proportional to the fourth power of weight of the vehicle).
I don't think we will increasy taxes for electricity. How do you even to that, when most cars are charged at home. The more likely scenario is that governments will impose higher road use charges. That has been a trend anyway in most of the developed world.
In the UK, domestic/household electricity is taxed at 5% but electricity from public EV chargers is taxed at 20%.
When we can buy second hand electric cars _with reliable batteries that aren’t near end of life_ for 2k, we can have a discussion. Arguments of affordability before that point will rely on cherry picking, and I call bullshit on every one of them.
I know many people pay way more for cars, even buying ones they can’t afford with loans, but most of the people I know aren’t in that group.
I know many people pay way more for cars, even buying ones they can’t afford with loans, but most of the people I know aren’t in that group.
What ICE car can you buy that fits that criteria for 2k? Anything that’s only 2k for a car these days has north of 100k miles and likely is in pretty rough shape.
Never bought a car for more than 2k, and never had any problems. They’re indeed usually over 100k miles, but definitely not in rough shape. In fact, my first car was under a grand, and it was built like a tank. I was not kind to that thing, and the only thing that killed it in the end was a head on collision (everyone was okay, lady got some expensive driving lesson that day).
I go for older cars because they tend to actually be more reliable, and the plus side is they’re cheaper.
I’m presuming “ICE” means internal combustion engine?
I go for older cars because they tend to actually be more reliable, and the plus side is they’re cheaper.
I’m presuming “ICE” means internal combustion engine?
I just parsed the classifieds and I don't know where you're finding these reliable cars for under 2 grand. The only thing I see in the sub $2k price range are cars that need engines, cars with >200k miles and suspiciously few details on running history, or cars that are literally wrecked. I wouldn't trust any of those cars to be reliable.
There's some cars that look like they're in 'decent' condition under $5k, but they again have >150k miles almost universally. Likely in need of some pretty expensive maintenance somewhat soon at that mileage.
I bought a car for $2k that was decent and <100k miles around 10 years ago, but those days are long over as far as I can tell.
And yes, ICE = internal combustion engine.
There's some cars that look like they're in 'decent' condition under $5k, but they again have >150k miles almost universally. Likely in need of some pretty expensive maintenance somewhat soon at that mileage.
I bought a car for $2k that was decent and <100k miles around 10 years ago, but those days are long over as far as I can tell.
And yes, ICE = internal combustion engine.
I agree. Until there’s a cheap electric option, the bulk of drivers won’t switch. Their car is paid for, or mostly so, it works and. With some payout, can be kept running indefinitely. It’s easy to convince rich people to buy into EVs, but try getting the people who can’t afford to blow a huge chunk of money on something that has less range, less perceived power and can’t be fixed by a cousin under a tree.
The average new car price in the US is around $47k, well above the Bolt, Kona and Leaf.
>When we can buy second hand electric cars _with reliable batteries that aren’t near end of life_ for 2k
CATL are talking about their LFP batteries having a life of 1,000,000km (600,000 miles). Given enough time there will be plenty of budget options. In the mean time you can keep buying cheap cars.
CATL are talking about their LFP batteries having a life of 1,000,000km (600,000 miles). Given enough time there will be plenty of budget options. In the mean time you can keep buying cheap cars.
are you saying that cost shouldn’t be a critique until the market as matured? Because of course a new product still being rolled out doesn’t have a good second hand market. It’s not reasonable to expect that.
There is a big shift in prices coming with Sodium Ion batteries. At about 1/4 the price of Li-ion they save substantial money all be it a little less dense. For all but the highest range cars Sodium Ion is going to do the job and BYD is talking about $12000 cars. Not quite a cheap car yet but still given the savings electrical vehicles bring on running costs its a significant step.
Its not just volume production the materials in the batteries are driving a lot of the high price. You can get a second hand Zoe for £4-5k but they are quite limited in range. A full range EV for £12k is going to be a big deal.
Its not just volume production the materials in the batteries are driving a lot of the high price. You can get a second hand Zoe for £4-5k but they are quite limited in range. A full range EV for £12k is going to be a big deal.
Sodium Ion energy density isn’t the best, it’ll probably impact grid storage more. For cars that need less than 200 miles of range I agree though.
Where I live (Italy) is still a matter of infrastructure. Situation is improving, but I'm not ready to live with the constant fear of not finding a charging station, especially if I need to travel thru the country or in the countryside.
I'm not ready yet. I'll be more for plug-in cars in a 5-years span.
I'm not ready yet. I'll be more for plug-in cars in a 5-years span.
I was traveling with an EC in countryside Italy 2y ago and had no problems finding public chargers.
Beside all of that, if you convert let's say 1/10 of cars with internal combustion engines to electric motor cars, there is no electricity to charge them. Which also leads to envirnonmental problems - creating so much electricity (+ CO2 emmision from thermal-electric plants). Just count average low electric car consumption 15kWh/100km.
While true if you haven't noticed it Solar and Wind are taking off at a staggering rate for electrical production. At prices around $15 per MWH they are substantially cheaper than gas/coal/oil electrical production. The economics just work out now in a big way and renewables are so much cheaper fossil fuels days are numbered.
Besides if you just car about the economics and not the potential reduction on the planet they are still cheaper to run over their lifetime compared to petrol.
Besides if you just car about the economics and not the potential reduction on the planet they are still cheaper to run over their lifetime compared to petrol.
If renewables are substantially cheaper, why did the UK and the rest of Europe have an energy crisis and record energy prices?
The two things don’t add up, on one hand you have people claiming renewables are cheaper than ever, on the other you have skyrocketing electric bills. If renewables don’t actually decrease energy prices for consumers then claiming it’s cheaper is misleading.
The two things don’t add up, on one hand you have people claiming renewables are cheaper than ever, on the other you have skyrocketing electric bills. If renewables don’t actually decrease energy prices for consumers then claiming it’s cheaper is misleading.
There's a war on and some gas lines were blown up. Consequences: A cold winter last winter, and countries scrambling to build expensive LNG terminals.
Last time I looked in this corner of Europe, it takes about 3-6 months to get an appointment to install solar and/or an electric heat pump. Installers can't keep up with demand, and they can't train new people faster than they're already doing.
That definitely isn't happening because the gas alternatives are so cheap.
Energy prices are high not because people are converting. They're high because of the shock caused by the (then) sudden unexpected war in Ukraine, and people simply can't convert fast enough.
Last time I looked in this corner of Europe, it takes about 3-6 months to get an appointment to install solar and/or an electric heat pump. Installers can't keep up with demand, and they can't train new people faster than they're already doing.
That definitely isn't happening because the gas alternatives are so cheap.
Energy prices are high not because people are converting. They're high because of the shock caused by the (then) sudden unexpected war in Ukraine, and people simply can't convert fast enough.
> why did the UK and the rest of Europe have an energy crisis and record energy prices?
What senile, old, corrupt and/or stupid politicians decide isn't necessarily the rational choice, and in fact is often the opposite.
Mismanagement shouldn't be seen as a failure or a flaw of the underlying technology.
What senile, old, corrupt and/or stupid politicians decide isn't necessarily the rational choice, and in fact is often the opposite.
Mismanagement shouldn't be seen as a failure or a flaw of the underlying technology.
> What senile, old, corrupt and/or stupid politicians decide isn't necessarily the rational choice, and in fact is often the opposite.
For example, these smirking German assholes, who I would have enjoyed seeing being interviewed last winter after Russia knocked the dumb smirks off their faces: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfJv9QYrlwg
For example, these smirking German assholes, who I would have enjoyed seeing being interviewed last winter after Russia knocked the dumb smirks off their faces: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfJv9QYrlwg
Because they don't have enough renewables yet and run on gas. It was gas prices that went ridiculously high after Russian gas was shut off and there wasn't enough.
Big power plants are more efficient than small ones, otherwise everyone would have a generator at home. The question is what difference batteries make.
Everybody doesn't have a generator at home?
/s,
Floridian
/s,
Floridian
The UK could move the whole fleet to electric and our overall demand would only go back to 2002 levels.
Like internal combustion is any better at this.
Of course it isn't. I don't vote for internal combustion technology at all. Both are environmental problem. Looking at all the (ex) hype about electric cars, sometime it looks like electrics - they clean the environment...
Internal combustion will stay for a long time in heavy machinery, sea and air transport, which is also problem, if not prevalent, so electric cars will bring negligible health improvement to planet. And add all the wars - our efforts to lower carbon footprint on this planet are so funny and naive.
Better do nothing, accept that we are gonna burn, and crank that gas up, right?
Most of the buyers I'm aware of are in the used market - fortunately, they mention this briefly
I'm curious how that market develops. I'm pessimistic about "Car 2.0" for a couple reasons
First, a chance to redefine the idea of what owning a car is. For example, subscriptions to use induction heaters that you already pay to power.
Second, the battery. They're consumable and a considerable size of the value.
I'm not sure their market would remain
I've driven too many four cylinders that I legitimately have a complex over how my car sounds. I'm driving my V8 until I can't anymore
I'm curious how that market develops. I'm pessimistic about "Car 2.0" for a couple reasons
First, a chance to redefine the idea of what owning a car is. For example, subscriptions to use induction heaters that you already pay to power.
Second, the battery. They're consumable and a considerable size of the value.
I'm not sure their market would remain
I've driven too many four cylinders that I legitimately have a complex over how my car sounds. I'm driving my V8 until I can't anymore
Yes. Too expensive, range anxiety and also having a garage is a plus. China dumping EVs on the EU market will fix the first part. But it will also screw up the complacent EU auto industry.
I have an acquaintance that bought an electric BMW for roughly €80,000.
My Dacia has cost me €4500 when it was brand new 14 years ago and I'm still driving it.
In my opinion electric cars are too expensive, yeah :)
My Dacia has cost me €4500 when it was brand new 14 years ago and I'm still driving it.
In my opinion electric cars are too expensive, yeah :)
A friend bought a house and 5 acres of land for $500k
I’m living in my mom’s basement for free.
In my opinion houses are too expensive.
I’m living in my mom’s basement for free.
In my opinion houses are too expensive.
You know you can buy €80,000 ice cars too right? Why would you compare cars that arent competing with each other?
What the fuck does "aren't competing with each other" mean?
They are cars. They do the same shit, take you from point A to point B. That's the definition of competing with each other.
Also, most of this world isn't made up by overpaid Valley developers but people who care about cost.
I'm buying the cheapest, couldn't give a fuck that it's electric if it costs more. And like me there are billions.
They are cars. They do the same shit, take you from point A to point B. That's the definition of competing with each other.
Also, most of this world isn't made up by overpaid Valley developers but people who care about cost.
I'm buying the cheapest, couldn't give a fuck that it's electric if it costs more. And like me there are billions.
No, €80,000 luxury cars are not doing the same as the economy cars are. Their job is more than just point A to point B. You can get electric cars for much less than that if you dont care about luxury and signaling.
You can get ICE cars for less as well....
Then compare the prices of those cars. Their comment is acting like electric cars are twice as expensive as comparable ice cars and thats just not true.
I think the OPs point is more likely that there are no EVs for 4.5k.
Precisely. The cheapest electric car available here is again, Dacia, at €21,000.
Note that it's not 20k but another 1k. For that €1000 which is a rounding error in the price of a new car, I can find lots of second-hand cars that will work just fine and have far greater autonomy than the electric one: https://www.olx.ro/d/oferta/vand-dacia-logan-2006-IDhOqJI.ht...
I only know one guy that has an electric car, that BMW, for which he actually only paid half, the other was some sort of aid program for companies (he owns one). He also owns a regular BMW and says the quality is far superior, and convenience and autonomy wise they cannot be compared.
So for €40,000 he bought an expensive toy because he can afford it but for serious business, driving hundreds of Km in one go, quick refill, comfort, he uses the gas-based car. Just think that besides driving from point A to point B in the winter you also need heating and in the summer cooling. The battery autonomy falls dramatically if you use them. Then there's charging time which is a major inconvenience compared with time to refill.
Note that it's not 20k but another 1k. For that €1000 which is a rounding error in the price of a new car, I can find lots of second-hand cars that will work just fine and have far greater autonomy than the electric one: https://www.olx.ro/d/oferta/vand-dacia-logan-2006-IDhOqJI.ht...
I only know one guy that has an electric car, that BMW, for which he actually only paid half, the other was some sort of aid program for companies (he owns one). He also owns a regular BMW and says the quality is far superior, and convenience and autonomy wise they cannot be compared.
So for €40,000 he bought an expensive toy because he can afford it but for serious business, driving hundreds of Km in one go, quick refill, comfort, he uses the gas-based car. Just think that besides driving from point A to point B in the winter you also need heating and in the summer cooling. The battery autonomy falls dramatically if you use them. Then there's charging time which is a major inconvenience compared with time to refill.
[deleted]
This has to be a satirical comment.
No, people switching in droves in Ireland. Also, you don't need a garage, just a small driveway.
Throw in a few solar panels and you have a low tax, low tco car or second car.
Throw in a few solar panels and you have a low tax, low tco car or second car.
As an electric car owner for the last 5 years (a Peugeot Ion), price is not my primary concern. What I want is a car with better range (250km+ in the winter), that seats 5, weighs 1100kg max, with no screen, and can tow 500kg. A plus: being able to swap the battery for a reasonable price when it gets too old. It's a shame these cars need to go to the dump at 10 years just because of the battery.
Where are you getting the 10 years from?
We have a Mach-E but I don't expect to be petrol free for a long time. I worry that the car will be a brick in 5 years. I'm not worried about the 15 F250, 95 F250, the 87 Chevy truck, the 2003 Excursion having that problem. If it lasts 10 years and is a good experience then we might be happy to switch.
Why would it be a brick? It looks like it has an 8 year warranty on the battery which is what most people worry about. NMC batteries should last at least 1,000 cycles which equates to 200,000 miles if it gets 200 miles to a charge. LFP batteries should get 2 - 3 times that.
Electric cars are simply not as good as their ICE counterparts, at least at the low/mid tier. High end you've got great options. But there seems to be no electric competitor to the Toyota Corolla that is as good or better at the same or lower price.
Tesla have claimed that the Model 3 has the same TCO as a Corolla after 5 years, so does that count?
https://thedriven.io/2023/04/27/tesla-model-3-total-cost-of-...
https://thedriven.io/2023/04/27/tesla-model-3-total-cost-of-...
Right now, electric cars are still at a disadvantage because of lower production volumes. It's not only the material cost of the battery and the motor that makes them more expensive, but also the share of the development costs that each sale has to recoup. In the not so distant future I think petrol and diesel cars are going to be at a disadvantage because of this.
I still own a quite old (12 years, but low mileage) petrol car, because I don't drive a lot and really only need it for errands in my city. In this scenario it's very hard to justify buying an almost new electric car. The used ones available on the market right now are still not very attractive in my opinion.
I still own a quite old (12 years, but low mileage) petrol car, because I don't drive a lot and really only need it for errands in my city. In this scenario it's very hard to justify buying an almost new electric car. The used ones available on the market right now are still not very attractive in my opinion.
That’s not the only thing. Electric vehicles are generally cheaper-built compared to gasoline cars at the same price point. They have cost- and weight-saving compromises that make them tangibly feel less valuable.
I read an article that said that Tesla leads luxury vehicle satisfaction above Lexus (JD Power), that satisfaction was growing as of 2022, young men drive luxury car sales, and that those young men primarily shop based on technology.
Surprise surprise, quality of materials per dollar isn’t always what guides buying decisions.
If that was the case, brands like Lincoln, Jeep, Dodge, and Maserati would be gone by now.
This is probably why Tesla emphasizes speed and performance in its marketing, because it is a spec where EVs are very price competitive. If you’re a young man who wants a fast car (a pretty common desire in that demographic) you’ll have a hard time finding gas cars as cheap as a Model 3 that can get to 60MPH in 3 seconds.
Surprise surprise, quality of materials per dollar isn’t always what guides buying decisions.
If that was the case, brands like Lincoln, Jeep, Dodge, and Maserati would be gone by now.
This is probably why Tesla emphasizes speed and performance in its marketing, because it is a spec where EVs are very price competitive. If you’re a young man who wants a fast car (a pretty common desire in that demographic) you’ll have a hard time finding gas cars as cheap as a Model 3 that can get to 60MPH in 3 seconds.
They are cheaper built because of the high share of R&D cost each car has to contribute.
Get back to me when there is enough infrastructure to support buying an EV as against an ICE car.
That means having an electrical grid that can support charging millions of cars every night, having sufficient charging stations that you don't have to queue up to access one, having sufficient charging stations that you can be assured of finding enough of them through rural, regional or desert areas. In other words, everywhere an ICE can go should be where an EV car can go. We are not at that level yet.
Oh. And the cost. Still far too high to be economical.
That means having an electrical grid that can support charging millions of cars every night, having sufficient charging stations that you don't have to queue up to access one, having sufficient charging stations that you can be assured of finding enough of them through rural, regional or desert areas. In other words, everywhere an ICE can go should be where an EV car can go. We are not at that level yet.
Oh. And the cost. Still far too high to be economical.
Yep. I know most driving isn't long-distance in rental cars, but I was traveling a few weeks ago and offered an electric car instead of the hybrid I had reserved, but since I was going to be driving long distances through rural areas, I declined. Not interested in finding where the hell to charge the car, in general or close enough to the airport for it to still have an acceptable amount of charge left when I returned it, when I could just pull into any gas station and quickly refill a non-electric car.
Yeah, I just had the experience of getting a $35 recharge fee when the rental company couldn't be assed to put a high speed charger out front of their return lot. Making me bring back the car at 75% but giving me no way to do that is just lame. The fee should only apply to less than 20% charge.
Thanks a lot Thrifty. Not going to rent from you again until you fix your electric car return policies.
Thanks a lot Thrifty. Not going to rent from you again until you fix your electric car return policies.
On the topic of getting dicked around with refueling/recharging charges, several times in the last few months I have returned a car with a full tank to Avis, only for them to still add some bullshit fuel charge that required calling and talking to someone to get it removed each time. No way the fees keep getting added by accident, they're just doing it so they can keep the fees from people who don't notice or care enough about their casual theft. Avoid those thieving assholes too.
For less than 30000€ you don't even get a decent car, all you can get is Dacia Spring or a Fiat 500. For family cars you need at least 45/50k, so yes, they are very expensive
Yes?
Not only that, most of them look terrible and the driving technique has to change dramatically to get any half decent range. It's a lot less engaging to daily an EV.
If you accelerate as slow as a median ICE car, the range shouldn’t be too bad. If you find it difficult not to press the accelerator pedal too hard, you can always use eco mode, chill mode, or Toyota mode, whatever it is called.
I find daily an EV much nicer as the driving is more silent, more smooth, the car is warmer faster, you don’t need to go to the oil and gas station once a while if you can charge at home or at work.
And the torque curve and the response time are so much better than all the car enthousiastes ICE cars in a similar price range.
I find daily an EV much nicer as the driving is more silent, more smooth, the car is warmer faster, you don’t need to go to the oil and gas station once a while if you can charge at home or at work.
And the torque curve and the response time are so much better than all the car enthousiastes ICE cars in a similar price range.
Most of them look exactly like the ICE versions of the same maker. Can you give example of EVs that you don't like, and the ICE vehicles that you like?
A lot of the entry-level, "city" EVs do indeed look stupid. This is less of a problem as you go up in the range though and indeed high-end EVs look barely any different than their ICE counterparts.
An EV would be a poor fit for people who drive hundreds of thousands of miles per year. That's an impressive daily commute.
[deleted]
Two years ago I spend nearly a month hunting for a decent electric vehicle. I had plenty of funds, and could theoretically afford a lower-end tesla. I was, at the time, driving a 2002 Honda Civic Hybrid, because to me, going electric makes sense. I was aware of the range limitations, and even had an agreement with my landlord to get a 220v outlet installed in the garage.
I ultimately abandoned my endeavor because none of the vehicles provided 2 key things older cars continue to provide: Ownership, and Privacy. And key to this is that this isn't just electric cars, it's pretty much all modern cars. My Civic had a replaceable stereo headunit. How many modern cars have the infotainment system so embedded that functions of the cars depend on it? And we know car manufactures take advantage of that. Hell, even judges seem ok with them doing that [1]. Then you have the fact that repairing anything in the car is made not only intentinally obtuse, but illegal is some states. As it stands right now in oklahoma, you can do any work you want on your gas vehicle, but move to electric and you better have a $5,000 yearly certificate to touch that. Simply opening the hood can land you in jail. And we know the car manufacturers can tattle on you [2]. Then there's the fact that these cars are more than capable of moving themselves. And that system is tied to a remote service. Absolutly nothing stops a manufacturer from deciding that your car's "drive train control system" is no longer licensed, and simply shut it down. Permanently. If companies are willing and able to steal your media [3], the next step is easily to just brick your appliances. Hell, microwaves are already doing that [4]. Trains do that if you decide a third party repair station is reasonable [5]. Where does this end?
Point being, till I can truly own my vehicle again, I'm sticking with older cars. I would much rather own an electric vehicle, but so far none of them are even remotely close to being something I can actually own. Price has nothing to do with it. [1] https://www.malwarebytes.com/blog/news/2023/11/judge-rules-i... [2] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/apr/07/tesla-int... [3] https://www.forbes.com/sites/paultassi/2023/12/02/playstatio... [4] https://hackaday.com/2022/03/18/welcome-to-the-future-where-... [5] https://hackaday.com/2023/12/06/the-deere-disease-spreads-to...
I ultimately abandoned my endeavor because none of the vehicles provided 2 key things older cars continue to provide: Ownership, and Privacy. And key to this is that this isn't just electric cars, it's pretty much all modern cars. My Civic had a replaceable stereo headunit. How many modern cars have the infotainment system so embedded that functions of the cars depend on it? And we know car manufactures take advantage of that. Hell, even judges seem ok with them doing that [1]. Then you have the fact that repairing anything in the car is made not only intentinally obtuse, but illegal is some states. As it stands right now in oklahoma, you can do any work you want on your gas vehicle, but move to electric and you better have a $5,000 yearly certificate to touch that. Simply opening the hood can land you in jail. And we know the car manufacturers can tattle on you [2]. Then there's the fact that these cars are more than capable of moving themselves. And that system is tied to a remote service. Absolutly nothing stops a manufacturer from deciding that your car's "drive train control system" is no longer licensed, and simply shut it down. Permanently. If companies are willing and able to steal your media [3], the next step is easily to just brick your appliances. Hell, microwaves are already doing that [4]. Trains do that if you decide a third party repair station is reasonable [5]. Where does this end?
Point being, till I can truly own my vehicle again, I'm sticking with older cars. I would much rather own an electric vehicle, but so far none of them are even remotely close to being something I can actually own. Price has nothing to do with it. [1] https://www.malwarebytes.com/blog/news/2023/11/judge-rules-i... [2] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/apr/07/tesla-int... [3] https://www.forbes.com/sites/paultassi/2023/12/02/playstatio... [4] https://hackaday.com/2022/03/18/welcome-to-the-future-where-... [5] https://hackaday.com/2023/12/06/the-deere-disease-spreads-to...
This reads paranoid and hyperbolic.
I’m gonna need sources that you actually cannot repair an EV yourself. Parts sourcing may be difficult, and I’m sure there’s some certification you need as a mechanic to work on high voltage systems in some states, but the vast vast majority of work on EVs is boring normal stuff like brakes, fluids, etc. Nobody is getting thrown in jail for opening the hood on their own car, that’s ridiculous.
Also, nobody is bricking anyone’s car. If you’re that paranoid about remote access, it’s possible to just remove the cell access. It’s certainly possible on Tesla’s, it’s even an unlisted option when ordering.
I’m gonna need sources that you actually cannot repair an EV yourself. Parts sourcing may be difficult, and I’m sure there’s some certification you need as a mechanic to work on high voltage systems in some states, but the vast vast majority of work on EVs is boring normal stuff like brakes, fluids, etc. Nobody is getting thrown in jail for opening the hood on their own car, that’s ridiculous.
Also, nobody is bricking anyone’s car. If you’re that paranoid about remote access, it’s possible to just remove the cell access. It’s certainly possible on Tesla’s, it’s even an unlisted option when ordering.
> This reads paranoid and hyperbolic.
It does read paranoid, because the whole things should be ridiculous in a sane world. That's part of the problem. This shouldn't even be a concern, but it is.
> I'm gonna needs source...
Unfortunately the source is to read through Oklahoma Statute 40-142, since it's a fairly interwoven and long document that establishes what Alternate Fuel Technicians must do to be certified, what vehicles must be serviced by said technicians, and what the consequences are for violating those requirements. Of note, the statute calls out EVs as falling under the statue requirements, and what your allowed to modify is a (short) list of exceptions, rather than a list of restrictions. There's no single line to point to, as is true for a lot of law stuff.
> Also, nobody is bricking anyone's car. If you're that paranoid about remote access, it's possible to just remove the cell access.
First, please read the last 3 references of my previous comment. There is a clear and present pattern of increased removal of access via remote updates. Furthermore, removing that cell access hampers the car significantly, with no allowed alternative. The option is to let them listen, or watch your infotainment system be effectively paralyzed. I would be happy with an option to simply swap out the infotainment with something else, like I did with my 2002 Honda Civic, but it's their system or nothing. Plus, it takes one trip to the repair shop, which must be a first-party repair shop, since no one else is allowed access to the needed codes to reset the computers, for something to be updated without my consent, and a feature (or the whole car) to be bricked "for your safety". It need not even be that involved. Again, the above train example used geo-fencing to decide when to brick the train. no remote connection needed.
This isn't just a matter of can I hobble a car enough to not abuse me. It's about what part of the car do I really own. Am I allowed to modify it? Are enough of the systems cryptographically secured to, in-practice, prevent me from changing something like a break-pad? Will I need to completely replace the engine computer to swap out the music app?
Right now the answer is that the car isn't mine, and I'm not allowed to make changes. Not in practice, and not in principle.
It does read paranoid, because the whole things should be ridiculous in a sane world. That's part of the problem. This shouldn't even be a concern, but it is.
> I'm gonna needs source...
Unfortunately the source is to read through Oklahoma Statute 40-142, since it's a fairly interwoven and long document that establishes what Alternate Fuel Technicians must do to be certified, what vehicles must be serviced by said technicians, and what the consequences are for violating those requirements. Of note, the statute calls out EVs as falling under the statue requirements, and what your allowed to modify is a (short) list of exceptions, rather than a list of restrictions. There's no single line to point to, as is true for a lot of law stuff.
> Also, nobody is bricking anyone's car. If you're that paranoid about remote access, it's possible to just remove the cell access.
First, please read the last 3 references of my previous comment. There is a clear and present pattern of increased removal of access via remote updates. Furthermore, removing that cell access hampers the car significantly, with no allowed alternative. The option is to let them listen, or watch your infotainment system be effectively paralyzed. I would be happy with an option to simply swap out the infotainment with something else, like I did with my 2002 Honda Civic, but it's their system or nothing. Plus, it takes one trip to the repair shop, which must be a first-party repair shop, since no one else is allowed access to the needed codes to reset the computers, for something to be updated without my consent, and a feature (or the whole car) to be bricked "for your safety". It need not even be that involved. Again, the above train example used geo-fencing to decide when to brick the train. no remote connection needed.
This isn't just a matter of can I hobble a car enough to not abuse me. It's about what part of the car do I really own. Am I allowed to modify it? Are enough of the systems cryptographically secured to, in-practice, prevent me from changing something like a break-pad? Will I need to completely replace the engine computer to swap out the music app?
Right now the answer is that the car isn't mine, and I'm not allowed to make changes. Not in practice, and not in principle.
My reading of 40-142 seems to me that if you offer for work/work (i.e., payment in exchange for services) then you require this license. Nowhere do I see any restriction on an individual performing their own service. That's distinctly not work. Find me evidence or a news article of someone getting arrested or fined for working on their own EV in OK.
Also, you're citing multiple unrelated things to actual cars here. Sure, I agree, that remote access/updates can be used maliciously. No doubt.
In actual practice though, what car prevents you from changing brake pads yourself? What car has ACTUALLY been 'bricked for your safety' ? This is hysteria not backed by reality. You can do maintenance on your own car, and I don't see that going away any time soon. Sure, some companies (BMW seems to love to do this...) make it extremely hard to pull diagnostic codes, but there is nobody bricking your car for changing out the infotainment system.
Also, you're citing multiple unrelated things to actual cars here. Sure, I agree, that remote access/updates can be used maliciously. No doubt.
In actual practice though, what car prevents you from changing brake pads yourself? What car has ACTUALLY been 'bricked for your safety' ? This is hysteria not backed by reality. You can do maintenance on your own car, and I don't see that going away any time soon. Sure, some companies (BMW seems to love to do this...) make it extremely hard to pull diagnostic codes, but there is nobody bricking your car for changing out the infotainment system.
EV brakes are extremely complex because they need to feel like hydraulic brakes but be decoupled from the calipers unless the computer can't accomplish what the driver is asking for with regen, and then it must let the physical force of the drivers for continue through to the calipers. They have to fail safe when the computer is crashing and not calculating the motor field winding currents correctly for them to work.
In a Zoe, there is no coolant to change, it's an integrated heat pump system for humans and propulsion system.
There is very little maintenance a home gamer can do on it, alas.
In a Zoe, there is no coolant to change, it's an integrated heat pump system for humans and propulsion system.
There is very little maintenance a home gamer can do on it, alas.
EV braking system complexity has nothing to do with EV brake changes. It works exactly the same, you bleed brakes, and there's a brake fluid reservoir somewhere, you have brake pads. Nothing magic. It's all the same stuff.
Coolant... sure there's less coolant, but there still is coolant, it's just usually for cooling the battery and motors and not the engine. Most are lifetime fill, although most gas engines have >100k mile coolant change intervals already.
What maintenance are you suggesting even needs to be done? Tire changes/rotations, cabin air filter changes... there isn't much else you even need to do.
Coolant... sure there's less coolant, but there still is coolant, it's just usually for cooling the battery and motors and not the engine. Most are lifetime fill, although most gas engines have >100k mile coolant change intervals already.
What maintenance are you suggesting even needs to be done? Tire changes/rotations, cabin air filter changes... there isn't much else you even need to do.
Petrol cars were too expensive for decades
They're still too expensive. They are made "affordable" via financing. That was a banking solution. EVs can be financed. Yet they are still too expensive, over the life of the car. "Expense" also including the inconvenient differences in the manner in which they have to be used.
EVs are awaiting an unforseen tech solution to their expense.
EVs are awaiting an unforseen tech solution to their expense.
If fuel costs aren't a large part of your cost of ownership, yes.
If you commute from the suburbs, maybe not.
If you commute from the suburbs, maybe not.
Just get rid of the damn cars.
In city centres for sure. In the country side, the population density makes public transports more challenging. People could walk or bike or ski but that would reduce their life quality.
It’s difficult to reduce your life quality unless you are forced. I don’t see country side people giving up their cars.
It’s difficult to reduce your life quality unless you are forced. I don’t see country side people giving up their cars.
Most people live in urban areas. Even in suburban areas, the bicycle could be a viable form of transportation. My grocery store is literally under ten minutes away by bike, but it is essentially a nightmare to bike to because of a lack of safe cycling infrastructures.
Bicycling is a viable form of transportation, for short distances and recreation. However, it isn't an option for many if not most needs outside of the house even in suburbia. Not to mention the rural areas / exurbs. A Mom of a couple of kids can't transport her weekly food shop on a bike. Ignoring the inherent danger in getting to the store.
I feel like this is a planning conversation for before the era when they decided to make US planning completely car centric and isolating, in a manner that can't be easily nor quickly reversed in a real way.
I feel like this is a planning conversation for before the era when they decided to make US planning completely car centric and isolating, in a manner that can't be easily nor quickly reversed in a real way.
I am just saying that in my suburban context, a bike could make sense if there's proper bike infrastructure.
It would also make sense if there's a plan to reduce the amount of traffic because the road is used for through traffic both way which makes residents in the neighborhoods being forced to wait a long time before they're able to enter the road safely.
There's also a gas station much nearer, but it's not very easy to bike there. Walking there can get your shoes very muddy. There are also offices building nearby too, but once again, it's not very easy to get there on foot or bike.
This is all within my local suburban context, but it's not easy to do when large stroad make it difficult to cross relatively short distance, or when protected bike lanes and sidewalks are extremely lacking, or when crossing the road is a dangerous activity or when getting to your local gas station might get your shoes muddy and wet.
It would also make sense if there's a plan to reduce the amount of traffic because the road is used for through traffic both way which makes residents in the neighborhoods being forced to wait a long time before they're able to enter the road safely.
There's also a gas station much nearer, but it's not very easy to bike there. Walking there can get your shoes very muddy. There are also offices building nearby too, but once again, it's not very easy to get there on foot or bike.
This is all within my local suburban context, but it's not easy to do when large stroad make it difficult to cross relatively short distance, or when protected bike lanes and sidewalks are extremely lacking, or when crossing the road is a dangerous activity or when getting to your local gas station might get your shoes muddy and wet.
>A Mom of a couple of kids can't transport her weekly food shop on a bike
They can if said bike is an e-cargo bike.
They can if said bike is an e-cargo bike.
I would dispute that driving leads to a higher quality of life than walking/biking/skiing due to the health problems from lack of exercise. Driving certainly helps with long commutes, but are long commute times increasing the quality of life?
Driving isn't negotiable, when living in the USA outside of the few major metros. Unless you've done it, you may not know what I mean. Most of the US is truly remote, even from the closest grocery store. Health doesn't play into the practical consideration of the way most of the country needs to traverse needed distances.
I've visited the U.S. a couple of times on holiday and even from that perspective, it's stunning just how many places are designed exclusively around the car. Even just walking from one shop to the next is awkward as they often have fences or hedges to separate them, so you have to walk from the shop, through the extensive car park, onto the main road that has no sidewalk and then into the next car park.
But yes, you're right. If you design exclusively around the car then not using a car becomes very awkward. Also, without any meaningful public transport, the suburbs also lock in car usage.
However, car usage is only really practical up to a certain density of people due to their poor space usage. When you get more people using cars, you need more roads and car parking space. This tends to separate the various amenities to fit in all the extra space, which then means that more people will need a car to travel to them due to the extra distance. That leads to yet more roads and more separation of the shops etc. until you reach a point where there's massive congestion at popular times. However, building more roads leads to induced demand and even more congestion, when the actual solution is to move facilities closer to where people live/work so that they're not forced into driving everywhere.
But yes, you're right. If you design exclusively around the car then not using a car becomes very awkward. Also, without any meaningful public transport, the suburbs also lock in car usage.
However, car usage is only really practical up to a certain density of people due to their poor space usage. When you get more people using cars, you need more roads and car parking space. This tends to separate the various amenities to fit in all the extra space, which then means that more people will need a car to travel to them due to the extra distance. That leads to yet more roads and more separation of the shops etc. until you reach a point where there's massive congestion at popular times. However, building more roads leads to induced demand and even more congestion, when the actual solution is to move facilities closer to where people live/work so that they're not forced into driving everywhere.
I take your point.
The US is wildly low-density outside of the major metros. It's one of the better things about this Nation.
Conversely, the very dense portions are built for cars and facilities are relatively close but still require a car to reach on the whole.
I live an a very dense major urban area, just outside of the city limits, and there isn't a single walkable store that isn't a convenience store with a gas station, a drug store, a rare butcher, a bar, a liquor store, a beer distributor, a tobacco store, a laundromat, and a pizza shop that serves bad food. And most of those aren't a short walk, though I need none of them aside from the butcher.
The grocery store and anything else absolutely requires a car. The trend isn't toward more such facilities, but less. Social (crime) and economic pressures are causing the food desert to expand. I know people who live 3/4 further away from me, across dense urbanity (which is a lot to travel, especially for older people), who need to travel to the suburban food store that I go to. There isn't space between it and them to build another grocery store. Less adaptable and more vulnerable stores have closed.
I agree that there is a limit to dense usability given any metric, but the dense areas are already designed. There isn't an option to redesign them as they represent vast expanses of residential homes. I don't see exurban areas filling in any time soon, especially given fuel / electric costs and economic pressures in addition to higher interest rates that will slow residential construction for the forseeable future. Also, they are truly vast.
The US is wildly low-density outside of the major metros. It's one of the better things about this Nation.
Conversely, the very dense portions are built for cars and facilities are relatively close but still require a car to reach on the whole.
I live an a very dense major urban area, just outside of the city limits, and there isn't a single walkable store that isn't a convenience store with a gas station, a drug store, a rare butcher, a bar, a liquor store, a beer distributor, a tobacco store, a laundromat, and a pizza shop that serves bad food. And most of those aren't a short walk, though I need none of them aside from the butcher.
The grocery store and anything else absolutely requires a car. The trend isn't toward more such facilities, but less. Social (crime) and economic pressures are causing the food desert to expand. I know people who live 3/4 further away from me, across dense urbanity (which is a lot to travel, especially for older people), who need to travel to the suburban food store that I go to. There isn't space between it and them to build another grocery store. Less adaptable and more vulnerable stores have closed.
I agree that there is a limit to dense usability given any metric, but the dense areas are already designed. There isn't an option to redesign them as they represent vast expanses of residential homes. I don't see exurban areas filling in any time soon, especially given fuel / electric costs and economic pressures in addition to higher interest rates that will slow residential construction for the forseeable future. Also, they are truly vast.
I agree that many of the drives out in the countryside should be bike rides, but not all.
I’ve seen people driving their car to the supermarket <1km away for a handful of shopping, which is obviously bonkers. Then again, you sometimes need to drive somewhere or be cut off, which leads to poor mental health and quality of life.
I’ve seen people driving their car to the supermarket <1km away for a handful of shopping, which is obviously bonkers. Then again, you sometimes need to drive somewhere or be cut off, which leads to poor mental health and quality of life.
Did you know that car ownership in the Netherlands, the country renown for its cycling culture, has been on the rise?
https://www.cbs.nl/en-gb/news/2020/10/car-fleet-growing-fast...
https://www.cbs.nl/en-gb/news/2020/10/car-fleet-growing-fast...
Besides having world class water infrastructure and great cycling infrastructure and great public transport -- would it surprise you that the Netherlands is also one of the better countries in the world to drive in?
To steal a famous youtube channel's title: it's Not Just Bikes.[1]
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8RRE2rDw4k "The Best Country In The World For Drivers" (This might be a slight exaggeration to get more youtube clicks? Who knows! But it tells the story ok)
To steal a famous youtube channel's title: it's Not Just Bikes.[1]
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d8RRE2rDw4k "The Best Country In The World For Drivers" (This might be a slight exaggeration to get more youtube clicks? Who knows! But it tells the story ok)
I've driven in a lot of counties and I can confirm NL is easily one of the best.
It's not so much about getting rid of the cars (just yet). I agree that electric vehicles don't solve the underlying issue. But we first need (we in North America, at least) a build environment designed for humans first (basically, copy what the Dutch have accomplished).
[deleted]
[deleted]
aregreabn(1)
My concern is safety (car wreaks), distaste for touch interfaces (also safety related) and the environmental (ironic, I know) and social impact of rare earths mining.
Rare earths are not a major component in car batteries. They are mostly used in the electric motors for the magnets and it's acutally quite easy to replace them. Mining of lithium, copper, nickel, will have to expand in the future. But it's nothing in comparison to the damage that is done with the extraction of oil and gas.
Yes, people afraid of rare earth and lithium mining should get some numbers right first: We extract 4 BILLION TONS of oil from the ground every year. In comparison, we extract a few million tons of lithium (and it's reusable / recyclable), and a few tens of thousand tons of rare earths.
The FUD about mining is pure big oil propaganda, frankly.
The FUD about mining is pure big oil propaganda, frankly.
Oil (let’s forget about Canada oil sands for a minute here) is pumped out of the ground. Lithium and copper is strip mined and lithium salts are dried in toxic pools. I’m all for the electric transition because oil will run out but this needs figuring out environmentally.
Oil is burnt into CO2 that will remain for centuries in the atmosphere, heating it up (and I'm not mentioning countless toxic oil spills, methane leaking, etc). It's less immediately visible and acutely dangerous than toxic pools, but it's really bad.
Few years ago the pure lithium produced was 50 THOUSAND tons. I'm sure it's a multiple by now but I'd be surprised if it has gotten to millions.
Also once lithium is extracted, it carries energy thousands of times before it needs to be recycled to work thousands of times more and so on.
Oil/coal carries the energy ONCE and then it's unmitigated pollution.
And you are right that this is about 4 BILLION tons annually.
Here is data until 2021. http://www.world-mining-data.info/?World_Mining_Data___Data_...
Also once lithium is extracted, it carries energy thousands of times before it needs to be recycled to work thousands of times more and so on.
Oil/coal carries the energy ONCE and then it's unmitigated pollution.
And you are right that this is about 4 BILLION tons annually.
Here is data until 2021. http://www.world-mining-data.info/?World_Mining_Data___Data_...
Don’t you need to extract hundreds of millions of tons of lithium ore to get a couple of millions of tons of pure lithium? Not to mention the extensive chemical processing the ore must go through.
Yes but it's still absolutely dwarfed by the staggering amounts of fossil fuels we're extracting (and the absolute environmental catastrophe that goes with them):
https://edconway.substack.com/p/the-hump
https://edconway.substack.com/p/the-hump
Is it just pure FUD? There's some very negative and well documented externalities with lithium mining in particular like child slavery and major environmental pollution. It's not something "big oil" is just making up.
There are negative externalities with any mining, especially as it's often done in developing countries with poor labor protection. However if you are serious about it you should strive to improve the condition of mining workers, as opposed to forgoing it in favor of pumping oil.
"Child slavery" is a known problem with cobalt mining, not lithium mining.
Petrol fire is undoubtedly easier to come by and more dangerous in case of a crash. Touch interfaces aren't specifically tied to electric vehicles; it's a common disease on all modern vehicles, fortunately on the decline. Environmentally, in countries with reasonably balanced (i.e. not China and Poland) power generation, EVs are *way better* than ICEs, without the slightest room for debate.
Petrol fire is much easier to extinguish than a battery fire.
Yeah, touch interfaces is a disease on most modern vehicles (but especially electric).
The infrastructure is the weakest link after the raw material chain required to build them. Oh, and recycling/disposal.
Yeah, touch interfaces is a disease on most modern vehicles (but especially electric).
The infrastructure is the weakest link after the raw material chain required to build them. Oh, and recycling/disposal.
Petrol fire is much more common than battery fires, which are vanishingly rare.
The oil infrastructure must be dismantled as fast as possible. Recycling of batteries is a chicken-egg problem : it's ramping up, but is necessarily lagging behind EV market penetration. It's an eminently solvable problem -- lead batteries are recycled way over 95% already.
Remember : a vehicle lasts about 12 to 14 years. in 2035 (12 years), our fossil fuel consumption must have been reduced drastically compared to now. Buying any sort of ICE vehicle today is really, really hard to justify.
The oil infrastructure must be dismantled as fast as possible. Recycling of batteries is a chicken-egg problem : it's ramping up, but is necessarily lagging behind EV market penetration. It's an eminently solvable problem -- lead batteries are recycled way over 95% already.
Remember : a vehicle lasts about 12 to 14 years. in 2035 (12 years), our fossil fuel consumption must have been reduced drastically compared to now. Buying any sort of ICE vehicle today is really, really hard to justify.
Petrol cars don’t burn your house down in the middle of the night while the car is turned off. This happened several times with the Bolt EV (A car I owned) until GM had to recall them all and eventually cancel the entire line and stop manufacturing it. These batteries are extremely dangerous and lithium fires can’t be extinguished like a gasoline fire since the reaction creates its own oxygen.
> Petrol cars don’t burn your house down in the middle of the night while the car is turned off.
Yes they do: https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/rcl/2022/RCLRPT-22V346-3365.PDF
> Risk of underhood fire, including while the vehicle is parked and off.
Yes they do: https://static.nhtsa.gov/odi/rcl/2022/RCLRPT-22V346-3365.PDF
> Risk of underhood fire, including while the vehicle is parked and off.
Data from the Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency recently found that ICE cars could be up to 20 times more likely to catch fire. https://www.msb.se/sv/aktuellt/nyheter/2023/maj/brander-i-el...
It also wasn't that long ago that a diesel car that was parked and switched off spontaneously caught fire and wrote off an entire multi-storey car park at Luton Airport, so there's an anecdote for all.
That's not to say that problems with the Bolt weren't serious but they are not representative of the EV market as a whole.
It also wasn't that long ago that a diesel car that was parked and switched off spontaneously caught fire and wrote off an entire multi-storey car park at Luton Airport, so there's an anecdote for all.
That's not to say that problems with the Bolt weren't serious but they are not representative of the EV market as a whole.
>our fossil fuel consumption must have been reduced drastically compared to now.
Tens of millions of people, and possibly more, see this argument as low credibility. Meaning, that the argument for EVs should probably be made according to their inherent merits and not climate arguments.
Put another way, I'd be careful about tangling up the EV push in divisive climate politics. As one is arguably likely to taint EVs in the minds of the public, leading to ever greater pushback in regard to their adoption. Don't underestimate public response to being told that they have to change their lifestyle because of hotly debated assertions. No matter whether or not you think they should be debated.
Tens of millions of people, and possibly more, see this argument as low credibility. Meaning, that the argument for EVs should probably be made according to their inherent merits and not climate arguments.
Put another way, I'd be careful about tangling up the EV push in divisive climate politics. As one is arguably likely to taint EVs in the minds of the public, leading to ever greater pushback in regard to their adoption. Don't underestimate public response to being told that they have to change their lifestyle because of hotly debated assertions. No matter whether or not you think they should be debated.
Nowadays, barely any new laptops are released without an SSD.
When it comes to electric versus petrol, I often think about the fact that the sun sends more energy to earth in an hour than all of mankind uses in a year.
I guess that in theory, all that energy could be captured with parts that need no service at all and do not degrade? Of course, we will not practically reach that efficiency. But we will continue to improve towards this limit. When I think of what it takes to dig for oil and all the steps needed to turn that into a moving car, the way we are heading seems clear.