The author at least admits his bias up front, and then goes to lengths to parrot old and outlandish FUD concerning EV’s. Let the market decide is my main point, and Tesla is proving that an EV company can make it happen, through market forces. The other manufacturers cannot retool or won’t retool quickly enough to stay competitive. Tony Seba was right about so many things- and his message was never about government FORCING the actions, but that electrical energy will be cheaper, storage of electricity will be cheaper and more dependable, and the technology benefits will KEEP driving costs down. I against government mandates, for sure and am perfectly content to let the market decide the winners. (I doubt that subsidies will stop for either energy producers or EV companies!)
It’s not as simple as more EVs sold in higher population states. The proportion of EVs to population varies greatly.
A 3/12/2023 article in InsideEVlists states with highest number of EVs per 1,000 population. Thirteen states have EVs per thousand higher than the national average of 8.66.
California is at the top with 27.55. The lowest of the thirteen is Maryland at 9.13, just above the natl average. The remaining states are lower.
The list is followed by a map showing all states numbers per 1,000. Texas is at 5.13 (but has a high population, so that means a high absolute number.
Some states as near the bottom in total population have low EV numbers per thousand: ND 1.31, SD 2.02, WY 2.08.
BTW, Tesla’s market share has dropped this year - and that’s in an EV market where growth is slowing.
So, the most EVs are sold in the states with the most people. Also water is wet and the Pope is Catholic. Note that Florida and Texas, pretty conservative states, are among the states with the most EVs.
The fact that Republicans are less open to buying EVs (right now) than are Democrats is not surprising.
Conservative folks are, by definition, folks that want to conserve - keep the same - the way lots of things are done. They prefer to wait and see if new things work well before switching away from proven ideas and products that work well enough. If something new might be better, they want to see that work out in practice.
EVs are really nice to drive, and really are cheaper to run, and really do need less maintenance. But the charging networks aren't yet nearly as ubiquitous as gas stations, and EVs are still more expensive to buy, even if the total cost of ownership is now on par with, or below the cost of an equivalent ICE vehicle.
As for the profitability of EVs, Telsa is an existence proof the EVs can be very profitable when they are sold in volumes high enough to dilute all the engineering and tooling costs that were spent up front.
The only EVs that are piling up on dealer lots are cars that aren't as good as Teslas, or as good a value. That's an indictment of poor engineering inefficient manufacturing of those cars, not of EVs in general.
Things to consider. This is all based on current EV tech. That will change. AC motors and wiring within a vehicle can all be made of Aluminum, and AC motors require no magnets. Batteries will not always be made out of Lithium (see Influit Energy for just one emerging tech) - betting on Lithium now is like arguing about whether VHS or Betamax will dominate the video industry in 2024.
Real solutions are coming - just not on the fairytale timeline leftist autocrats pronounce.
Battery prices for the same lifetime capacity (dollars per kwh stored/charged) have dropped by 75% in 16 years. Maybe you don't think that's a change, but most people do.
All the magic that is supposed to spring out of the lab the last decade just hasn't happened. But, maybe with more subsidies and more regulations, we'll get there. You seem happy with those.
What do you mean, "still?" They weren't in 1960. Or 1970, nor 1980. Your complaint seems to be either that it simply isn't happening fast enough to suit you, or that you simply lack the attention span to perceive the progression.
I'd be happier if government got completely out of it. Like Joetato, there's nothing government can't muck up.
Very good. The day all cars and trucks are electric and take 4-5 hours each to charge will be the day commerce grinds to a halt. Deliveries will not happen. Lots of things won't happen. Besides, for those who live in urban apartment buildings, use their cars and trucks for work, and park in the street, where will they charge their vehicles anyway?
The day all homes and businesses run on electric, absent a larger, hardened, hack-proof grid, will be the day Americans freeze in winter.
When our hills are ripped up for the minerals required for EV batteries and we manufacture the batteries ourselves (and not outsource to Eastern Europe and the Caucasus the depredations on our purple mountains majesty and the choking infernos of EV factories) will be the day environmentalists realize that oil wells and gas lines weren't so bad after all.
The day solar panels cover all our meadows and hills and windmills at sea destroy our marine populations . . . .
Great arguments. You neglected to mention the impact on the grid if these mandates ever were realized or the lost productivity of a population waiting to charge their machines. Or what happens when they are in freezing temperatures and waiting in line for a charge in a dead car
Extremely cold weather didn't leave it's mark on ev's until after your testimony. At least I'm assuming so because you made no mention of the unreliabity of these cars in frigid weather. One man reported his car has frozen closed so that he was unable get it open.(Unless he had an ICE car for backup, it's unlikely he was able to get to work.) Also the cold weather shortened the range of fuel supply dramatically for another proud owner. None of that compares to the rental car company that is selling it's entire fleet of ev's (20,000) because they were too
expensive and difficult to maintain.
I enjoyed reading your testimony because you provided the facts that support your position. I just hope that those who were listening don't ignore the magnitude of the problems mandates would create.
And you haven't even addressed the cost of creating charging stations. Massive changes and additions to the grid. No mention of those costs by the climate hysterics.
There is something off about your story. I have driven ~120,000 miles in my Tesla, and routinely go from Northern to Southern California, 435 miles, with one 45 minute charging stop (where I also eat lunch.) And my particular Tesla has 320 miles of range, not 400 miles.
Hey Jim! I guess I should have specified this but the weather the whole way was averaging a sub-zero temperature! The problem is that EVs don’t work well in the cold at all!
I talked to SCADA Manager at one of the large Western Canadian Utilities and the other problem is the unreliability of wind drives them crazy since they have to adjust power output constantly.
I feel like people who push EV do so out of a need to feel like they are doing something, even if that something makes no sense in reality. I think it is more of a religious belief in "Green Energy" solving all the world's problems. It is about sustaining the unsustainable by other means.
Bingo. The imminent "carbon-dioxide driven, man-made global warming catastrophe" has no basis in fact, but is deeply rooted in a religious fervor. Most men and women need faith, and for those indifferent to a monotheistic religions, the Cult of CO2 serves their need.
The EPA should be reduced to the size of a small monitoring agency with no authority or power to make regulations or mandates. Electric cars and "green" energy are some of the biggest scams in the world right now. These people don't care about the numbers or facts. They just care about looking like they're doing the right thing in front of the other climate cult members.
All well stated in the testimony, but I would make one suggestion: Given the 50/50 stalemate in political affiliation in the US, I’m not sure it’s helpful to point out that republicans are disinclined to by EVs relative to democrats. That just signals to democrats that they should dig in their heels to spite the other side. The technical and nonpartisan policy arguments are more likely to persuade more people. Preaching to the choir seldom works effectively at widespread persuasion.
Then how did Norway manage to have 90 percent of new car sales be EVs?
The author at least admits his bias up front, and then goes to lengths to parrot old and outlandish FUD concerning EV’s. Let the market decide is my main point, and Tesla is proving that an EV company can make it happen, through market forces. The other manufacturers cannot retool or won’t retool quickly enough to stay competitive. Tony Seba was right about so many things- and his message was never about government FORCING the actions, but that electrical energy will be cheaper, storage of electricity will be cheaper and more dependable, and the technology benefits will KEEP driving costs down. I against government mandates, for sure and am perfectly content to let the market decide the winners. (I doubt that subsidies will stop for either energy producers or EV companies!)
It’s not as simple as more EVs sold in higher population states. The proportion of EVs to population varies greatly.
A 3/12/2023 article in InsideEVlists states with highest number of EVs per 1,000 population. Thirteen states have EVs per thousand higher than the national average of 8.66.
California is at the top with 27.55. The lowest of the thirteen is Maryland at 9.13, just above the natl average. The remaining states are lower.
The list is followed by a map showing all states numbers per 1,000. Texas is at 5.13 (but has a high population, so that means a high absolute number.
Some states as near the bottom in total population have low EV numbers per thousand: ND 1.31, SD 2.02, WY 2.08.
BTW, Tesla’s market share has dropped this year - and that’s in an EV market where growth is slowing.
So, the most EVs are sold in the states with the most people. Also water is wet and the Pope is Catholic. Note that Florida and Texas, pretty conservative states, are among the states with the most EVs.
The fact that Republicans are less open to buying EVs (right now) than are Democrats is not surprising.
Conservative folks are, by definition, folks that want to conserve - keep the same - the way lots of things are done. They prefer to wait and see if new things work well before switching away from proven ideas and products that work well enough. If something new might be better, they want to see that work out in practice.
EVs are really nice to drive, and really are cheaper to run, and really do need less maintenance. But the charging networks aren't yet nearly as ubiquitous as gas stations, and EVs are still more expensive to buy, even if the total cost of ownership is now on par with, or below the cost of an equivalent ICE vehicle.
As for the profitability of EVs, Telsa is an existence proof the EVs can be very profitable when they are sold in volumes high enough to dilute all the engineering and tooling costs that were spent up front.
The only EVs that are piling up on dealer lots are cars that aren't as good as Teslas, or as good a value. That's an indictment of poor engineering inefficient manufacturing of those cars, not of EVs in general.
Excellent summary - typical work by Robert.
Things to consider. This is all based on current EV tech. That will change. AC motors and wiring within a vehicle can all be made of Aluminum, and AC motors require no magnets. Batteries will not always be made out of Lithium (see Influit Energy for just one emerging tech) - betting on Lithium now is like arguing about whether VHS or Betamax will dominate the video industry in 2024.
Real solutions are coming - just not on the fairytale timeline leftist autocrats pronounce.
Ah yes, the magical solutions are always right around the corner.
Meanwhile it's been 16 years and very little has changed.
Battery prices for the same lifetime capacity (dollars per kwh stored/charged) have dropped by 75% in 16 years. Maybe you don't think that's a change, but most people do.
I said very little has changed, not nothing. Try to read carefully.
They're still made of lithium. They're still piss poor relative to gasoline, even with the higher efficiency of electric motors. https://manhattan.institute/article/the-energy-transition-delusion
All the magic that is supposed to spring out of the lab the last decade just hasn't happened. But, maybe with more subsidies and more regulations, we'll get there. You seem happy with those.
"They're still made of lithium. "
What do you mean, "still?" They weren't in 1960. Or 1970, nor 1980. Your complaint seems to be either that it simply isn't happening fast enough to suit you, or that you simply lack the attention span to perceive the progression.
I'd be happier if government got completely out of it. Like Joetato, there's nothing government can't muck up.
Very good. The day all cars and trucks are electric and take 4-5 hours each to charge will be the day commerce grinds to a halt. Deliveries will not happen. Lots of things won't happen. Besides, for those who live in urban apartment buildings, use their cars and trucks for work, and park in the street, where will they charge their vehicles anyway?
The day all homes and businesses run on electric, absent a larger, hardened, hack-proof grid, will be the day Americans freeze in winter.
When our hills are ripped up for the minerals required for EV batteries and we manufacture the batteries ourselves (and not outsource to Eastern Europe and the Caucasus the depredations on our purple mountains majesty and the choking infernos of EV factories) will be the day environmentalists realize that oil wells and gas lines weren't so bad after all.
The day solar panels cover all our meadows and hills and windmills at sea destroy our marine populations . . . .
It's all a crock.
Not entirely - see my post adjacent. Demunist proclamations of timelines are, however, as much fiction as virtually everything else they say.
Great arguments. You neglected to mention the impact on the grid if these mandates ever were realized or the lost productivity of a population waiting to charge their machines. Or what happens when they are in freezing temperatures and waiting in line for a charge in a dead car
Extremely cold weather didn't leave it's mark on ev's until after your testimony. At least I'm assuming so because you made no mention of the unreliabity of these cars in frigid weather. One man reported his car has frozen closed so that he was unable get it open.(Unless he had an ICE car for backup, it's unlikely he was able to get to work.) Also the cold weather shortened the range of fuel supply dramatically for another proud owner. None of that compares to the rental car company that is selling it's entire fleet of ev's (20,000) because they were too
expensive and difficult to maintain.
I enjoyed reading your testimony because you provided the facts that support your position. I just hope that those who were listening don't ignore the magnitude of the problems mandates would create.
Solution is simple and Democrats are already working on it: eliminate those retrograde Republicans…
And you haven't even addressed the cost of creating charging stations. Massive changes and additions to the grid. No mention of those costs by the climate hysterics.
Took a drive from Utah to Montana in what was supposedly a “400-mile” Tesla.
The drive was 410 miles and we stopped 6 times on the drive. 6 times for 30 mins to an hour each and I have been short EVs ever since.
There is something off about your story. I have driven ~120,000 miles in my Tesla, and routinely go from Northern to Southern California, 435 miles, with one 45 minute charging stop (where I also eat lunch.) And my particular Tesla has 320 miles of range, not 400 miles.
Hey Jim! I guess I should have specified this but the weather the whole way was averaging a sub-zero temperature! The problem is that EVs don’t work well in the cold at all!
I learned so much from your articles. Thank you!
Thanks for power. Yes looks of Hydro.
I talked to SCADA Manager at one of the large Western Canadian Utilities and the other problem is the unreliability of wind drives them crazy since they have to adjust power output constantly.
Manitoba Hydro would have same issue.
And the modifications to the grid to deal with the constant power fluctuations.
I feel like people who push EV do so out of a need to feel like they are doing something, even if that something makes no sense in reality. I think it is more of a religious belief in "Green Energy" solving all the world's problems. It is about sustaining the unsustainable by other means.
Bingo. The imminent "carbon-dioxide driven, man-made global warming catastrophe" has no basis in fact, but is deeply rooted in a religious fervor. Most men and women need faith, and for those indifferent to a monotheistic religions, the Cult of CO2 serves their need.
The EPA should be reduced to the size of a small monitoring agency with no authority or power to make regulations or mandates. Electric cars and "green" energy are some of the biggest scams in the world right now. These people don't care about the numbers or facts. They just care about looking like they're doing the right thing in front of the other climate cult members.
All well stated in the testimony, but I would make one suggestion: Given the 50/50 stalemate in political affiliation in the US, I’m not sure it’s helpful to point out that republicans are disinclined to by EVs relative to democrats. That just signals to democrats that they should dig in their heels to spite the other side. The technical and nonpartisan policy arguments are more likely to persuade more people. Preaching to the choir seldom works effectively at widespread persuasion.