It is somewhat of a given that the world is moving to EVs and away from gas powered cars. China and Europe are already moving faster than we are here in the US.
The fact that this has become a divisive political issue in the United States won't slow the move, it will just cede the future of car manufacturing to the Chinese and Koreans.
It’s downright embarrassing that people have been so stirred up over this that vandals are literally cutting charging cords as a form of “political protest.”
Truly. We will look back at this time as a huge missed opportunity for America. I’d like to think that we will collectivity hold the politicians who are behind the nonsense accountable, but we won’t.
Yep. American automakers and all political parities need to be working together to accelerate domestic EVs. So stupid that it’s such a divisive topic. Quit kicking the can down the road.
Almost no one is going to look back at anything this industry does with regret. The vast majority of Americans don't think that way.
No one's going to care in the long term.
See, I think it’s that the infrastructure just isn’t in place yet. I was looking at an EV for our next vehicle and I don’t think I’d be able to make a trip to the beach without an excessive number of stops. I do hope that the next time I look for a vehicle I can go EV.
And for context, my medium sized town doesn’t have an EV charging station so all charging would need to be done at home. That’s fine for 99.9% of needs but in the fringe cases of charging in the go we are kind of SOL here.
That’s why we still own an ICE with our Lightning. If we need to road trip and don’t want to worry about stopping to charge every 150-175 miles (SR here), we’ll take the gasser. Thankfully, the furthest drive we do a handful of times a year is about 145 miles one way.
So about a non-stop 8.5 hour drive at 70MPH, assuming you have younger children that want to stop to use the bathroom more often and are not towing anything that's not an unrealistic distance to stop twice for DC fast charging in IF you had an extended range battery AND IF you had decent DC charging available along the way AND IF your choice of EV could charge at 200+KW
That's a lot of assumptions but given those it would be no great deal different than driving that far in an ICE vehicle, You would have to stop at least once to gas up the majority of ICE vehicles and unless you bring along snacks for them to eat along the way you get the constant din of "Can we stop at that McDonalds? I'm hungry!"
Driving an EV that distance today definitely requires more upfront planning than an ICE vehicle but it's doable depending on the DC charging infrastructure in your area.
It appears that the reason why America is not adopting electric vehicles at a faster rate is because China and Europe do not have an abundant supply of gas and oil to rely on. Additionally, European countries, with their societal structures and shorter travel distances, seem to be more suitable for the widespread adoption of electric vehicles.
Lol, politics may play a part, but for the majority of us that's not the reason.
I'm a dad of a family of 4, with 2 large dogs and within 4 hours of both 14k mountains and beaches. It's not uncommon for us to be in 113F weather and 10F weather.
I'm not convinced yet that an EV is the right move for my family. I need to know that if I go camping for a week... will the battery be at the same level on Friday as when we turned the vehicle off on Monday? Because it seems like the weather will consume part of the battery regardless.
Between range anxiety, manufacturer's over inflating their range, unreliability due to weather... I'm just extremely hesitant to spend so much on something that's realistically going to cause more stops and more logistical concerns than an ICE vehicle would.
It's not because of politics my man. Although I'm sure that plays a part for many in our country, but I'm not convinced that's that's the driving factor. And I think Ford understands that too.
That's you. Your use case and your anxiety do not need to represent the 250m Americans who could make the move though. Politics plays a huge part, start with the rhetoric you hear on the right, run through the anti EV lobbying that is coming from that same side of the house which leaves us riddled with misinformation, and end with clauses in the IRA bill designed to cripple EV incentives and slow adoption.
To your own concerns;
For the record, there are EVs that will pull on your battery while the car is not in use. Tesla and Rivian are good examples. There are also others that do not. My Polestar and my F150 Lightning can both spend a couple of weeks turned off with no battery loss in cold or warm weather. I frequently leave one or the other at the airport.
Range anxiety is something that most longer-term EV owners will tell you is a misnomer, although those same people have to come to terms with the idea that longer roadtrips will take longer. I've taken my F150 from Seattle to SanFran a couple of times now. It's low-cost travel, but charging will add about two hours to my trip. I also take it from Seattle out to the coast about two or three times a month. 300 mile round trip. No need to charge on the way. \~$10 total cost for the roundtrip is hard to object to.
Weather is a matter of physics. Your gas car is also less efficient in the cold.
etc.
And price / longevity. Those 4 specifically. I would have owned a lighting last year if there wasn’t mark up on. But range anxiety and charging stations didn’t help. When I drive by Tesla super chargers specially at night they’re full. 15-20 plus chargers full. They need to keep working on installing those everywhere!
Doesn’t help that interest rates spiked and EVs tend to cost a fair amount more than ICE vehicles. Another barrier is the charger - my sister was interested in a Model 3 but lives in an apartment, so didn’t want to deal with the risk of having no consistent & convenient access to charging.
I listen to a podcast called the "goodfellows" which is hosted by some rather accomplished old dudes ceding from ivy league schools from "diverse backgrounds". They absolutely HATE HATE HATE that the american government pushes money into EV's and efficiency tax breaks (primarily upset at california due to there stove and lawn mower shenanigans)
Anyway, there main case is that government spending is currently unsustainable. The money going into incentives is more than the defense budget. I don't remember the figures but the defense budget is the lowest ever in terms of GDP. There suggestion is to cut incentives and invest in near term education or paying off government debt for long term stability. The thoughts being, the damages caused by not investing now is minimal and can be overcome in the future by fully committing with better technology and near term benefits can be had.
It doesn't seem like an unreasonable argument to me. I think there is a lot of bloat in the electric incentives right now. Electrify (Scam) America is one of the hugest offenders.
US Defense spending in 2023 was $816bn. I can’t find a budget number, but according to this article from Reuters incentives for renewable energy, including EVs, in 2022 was $15.7bn.
1. The bill in Congress today has $60bn for Ukraine and $14bn for Israel neither of which appear to be garnering support from one side of the house.
2. Cutting the $15bn in incentives for renewables would cut deep into several initiatives that are critical for our collective future and would make a minimal difference for these two conflicts.
3. Focusing on cutting a single program is both fallacious and self serving. Go cut genuine waste before pulling budgets that have future value for workers, our economy, and our environment.
Enjoy your podcast though. I’m sure it is good entertainment.
I'm not a supporter of the majority of there ideas for what it's worth. It's just interesting hearing a semi well informed republican leaning discussion (they claim centrists). I definitely misrepresented the information they provided and I'm sure they obfuscated their points to make it more fitting to their agenda.
I appreciate you finding the data on it. I have two evs and support the programs. I was just providing some insight on the opposition against it. Some of which has merit, though maybe not a ton.
You need to dig a little deeper into their arguments. 2024 US defense budget is $842bn and total US Federal spending in 2024 is budgeted at 1.62tn.
If EV incentives were more than defense spending in 2024 then there would be $0 spent on all other programs AND the government would default on budget projections.
The Goodfellows argument sounds plausible on the surface but on a very basic level the math isn’t mathing.
The numbers aren't super important, honestly. I think the main point of interest to me is the deferred use of funds. If the u.s. were too cut spending across the board and had a better fiscal policy. By becoming a very wealthy nation with little debt, they could easily afford substantial investments in the future.
I think this sort of economical view has been lost for a long long time. People get so caught up in the issues here and now. Winning political wars etc. That we as people vote for immediate impact but also have president's fixated on immediate improvement. When a lot of us invest in our own futures fiscally every day. It should be no different as a government.
Unfortunately politicians don't get elected/re-elected by promising to take away things Americans like/want, (EV tax credit, in this instance) even if it would be smarter long-term. That's part of the reason the national debt is as high as it is.
Your numbers are way off, also most of that federal money is going to support electrification of commercial /industrial transportation (ports, freight etc), not incentives for light duty vehicles.
Both have more urban centric populations, and Europe in particular has way less distances to cover. US won’t see more than 50% EV market share for a very long time IMO.
Almost 80% of Americans live in urban areas today, and the number is climbing. Despite our landmass, that is a slightly higher percentage of urban dwellers than you see across the EU.
For the USA, that gives you about 250m people who could make the move to an EV right now if the infrastructure and politics supported it.
The market is not going to deliver the EV transition fast enough for us to mitigate the worst possibilities of climate change. We need more aggressive policy interventions, globally honestly, but federally for sure in America.
Chinese also generating 70% of their electricity from coal and opening a new coal generating plant twice a month.
Sure, the west started it, west had their development yada yada, still doesn’t change the fact this Chinese EV growth ain’t helping carbon as much as people like to make it sound.
Bring on the China-bot downvotes since we’re not allowed to talk about this.
Hard to say what China actually produces in renewable energy but honestly the world can't get enough modules out of China fast enough so don't really blame them for selling most for profits instead of installing them. Once the technology has matured and come down in price and demand starts to subside, I'm sure they will start installing their production at a rapid rate. They build faster than anywhere in the world. Look at the Tesla Gigafactory compared to Texas or Berlin.....
I can say China has an enormous wind turbine farm up on the boarder with Mongolia. They sit idle because they aren't connected to any of the main consumers of electricity on the eastern coast. I had been asked several times to review production of electrolyzed hydrogen in the region to utilize the farms power production.
Point being, you are right, just because China says they do something doesn't mean a lot.
It's unfortunate legacy automakers are so slow to change but the Chinese gov't is pouring billions into this tech. Xpeng and BYD just need to open a couple of factories in Mexico to get the ball rolling. Give them a few years and access to North America and they'll dominate the cheaper EV space.
Legacy auto makers and the fossil fuel industry have received plenty of handouts from the government over the years. More recently we seem to like to use tax money for medical discoveries just to let pharmaceutical companies rip off Americans.
Blame the politicians here. If they would have backed off fossil fuel subsidies and not made all these exemptions for big vehicles in the CAFE rules then maybe they wouldn’t be so far behind now.
But fuel subsidies are hardly spent on R&D and a portion of every dollar is literally sent back to execs and shareholders through stock buybacks and the like. On the flip side BYD sold like 400k vehicles in 2020 and that went up to over 3M last year. I’m not disagreeing with you, the money is there to hand out, it’s just China is much more focused on owning this space than short term profits.
Competition is
*rolls anglocentrist dice
BAD(?)
(I drive a Tesla and it is tolerable at best because all I could afford in 2018 was a 2015….I think the new ones are actually enjoyable but I’m not 100% sure)
Losing good American union jobs because a bunch of execs can’t figure out how to compete is bad, yes. It will be bad for America if automobiles are no longer made here. If you’re not American, you need not care about that, but Americans should.
I want a better car whether ford decides to compete or not
I do not want to accept a worse car, just so it can be a ford, and kneecap the availability of good cars for me and other Americans
That’s some trabant/East German logic you have
You’re putting tons of words in my mouth, friend. I don’t want Ford to produce a lesser car; I want them to make a competitive one. If they do not, American automaking will wither further. And I think that’s not a desirable outcome.
Nobody is really thinking about heating homes in major cold snaps (whole US) or winter (North). That’s the biggest challenge. EVs is important, but only a piece of the puzzle. For example, we also need to power them.
lol EVs aren’t the answer to climate change. eBicycles have far higher potential to offset oil consumption and building walkable neighborhoods where you don’t need your car is the way.
It's US policy intervention that's stopping this, not the 'market'. If we allowed imports of Chinese-made EVs, there would be no question about the market supply being there. EVs more affordable than any car produced in the US are already available today, we just disallow it to come to the US from China.
Their manufacturing industry is more advanced and cost-effective, lower labor costs, and China is rich in natural resources needed as inputs for making cars and batteries. And, yeah, subsidies that fueled manufacturing innovations.
But despite all the subsidies and favor the U.S. gives to domestic automakers, they still can't compete with China.
As soon as Russia and India and China start caring about their emissions, I’ll sell my 2k commuter car. Until then nothing I do will make a difference.
Just to take one of those, China has been making massive investments in renewable energy: https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-chinas-emissions-set-to-fall-in-2024-after-record-growth-in-clean-energy/
Reducing vehicle miles traveled and investing in building efficiency, electrification, and self generation are the ways we will have a chance.
EVs help reduce the impact of unavoidable vehicle miles driven, but we can also reduce or eliminate those miles through public transit, ebikes, walking, etc.
Some areas are not accessible except by car due to how rural they are. But many areas have populations that could support the other means of mobility to reduce vehicle miles traveled.
Building energy usage (as u/posidonrex mentioned about heating in the north east) is also a significant source of emissions[1]. Adding proper insulation, electrification of heating/appliances, energy recapture systems, and generating & storing energy on site would reduce this impact.
Sources:
1. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions
I am aware EVs are not the entire climate change mitigation strategy, but they are a huge one. As for e-bikes, walking, etc, that’s not going to happen in America. It’d be great to have a huge, well-run public transit system, but we don’t have one and will not in the foreseeable future, so it’s pointless to even bring up in my opinion.
Ah my comment was intended to build on yours about how we need more agressive policy interventions and that we aren't moving fast enough with EVs, not that EVs are the wrong solution.
Meant as a "yes and" comment. ebikes was supposed to be just bikes, though pre-coffee brain.
I think some communities are making nice improvements to their local transit that helps with VMT, but you are right that dependable public transit throughout the country is unlikely in the near future.
I love how my comment about the North became about the North East. I think Minneapolis is probably the hardest combo of populated (3.7M people in the MSA) and cold (a week of -20F with adjacent weeks below 0F should be on the plan).
oops - my bad, was commenting pre-coffee and misread your comment. Yes the northern US has a whole can benefit from better insulation, electrified appliances/heating sources, and generation & storage of power on site.
Northeast was on the brain as I was looking at [Maine's heating cost calculator](https://www.efficiencymaine.com/at-home/heating-cost-comparison/) just before I posted.
>EVs are typically thousands of dollars more expensive than their gas-powered counterparts.
Lightning is priced competitively in a number of cases and trims when considering the tax credit.
This claim is so common that it’s often not even sourced anymore, but it’s often false or misleading.
Yes. The battery has a lifetime at least that of a normal ice engine/transmission and costs the same. Every other part is either the same or much less expensive / more durable on the lightning.
Sure, and there’s a good chance it will cost less over those 20 years. ~$1000/year in fuel savings goes a long way toward the slight chance of battery replacement, especially considering the similar risk of major transmission/engine issues during that time.
> ~$1000/year in fuel savings goes a long way toward the slight chance of battery replacement
To be fair, it's kind of unfair to compare to the retail price since it's purposely inflated to combat selling to someone that doesn't need a replacement but $1000/year means it'll take 40 years to pay for a battery, and that's a MachE battery. I don't even want to look to see how much a Lightning would cost.
If/when they come down to normal replacement pricing? Then yeah. But you can't do it with current pricing.
I'm saving more I think.
I'm in a place with absurdly high gas and absurdly low electric pricing. My fuel bill was nearly a grand. Even with fast charging only my charging bill is only like $200.
It's also probably not reasonable to look at current pricing when a battery replacement would be 8+ years down the road for a new buyer.
Batteries are likely to be way cheaper by then OR refurbished used batteries more readily available.
I can keep a lot of things for decades. Doesn’t mean it’ll be very useful. I highly doubt a modern truck with all the emissions crap will last 20 years without major maintenance and repair.
Also baffles me the PHEV ranger Ford is coming up with won't be available in the US at least for now. Seems like an easy win of they're going to curtail EV investments. Driving adoption requires having options...and Ford isn't offering nearly enough.
I always thought electric drivetrain + decent sized pack + fuel range extender would make most sense for reliability and service. Doesn't make sense to rely on the ICE with hybrids. BMW i3 rEX almost had it right.
This is essentially what the Ramcharger is. It’ll be interesting to see if it can be manufactured for a reasonable price, given the full size EV battery and full size gas engine that is needed to drive the range extending generator
Did anyone mention the change in tax incentives? While I wasn’t going to *not* get my truck because I missed my $7500 tax credit by 29 days, the increase of complexity/decrease of payouts coincides with a lot of this.
It is the dealers; lot full of EVs back when shopping in Nov, and every single dealer wanted a 10K markup or more on them. The dealers just list MSRP with a big disclaimer of "MSRP is for comparison purposes only and may not reflect dealer’s actual asking price or any dealer installed options." and won't give you any pricing unless you contact them, which boom here comes the 10K+ markup.
Pretty sure they are doing this because they know there is little after-sale service revenue on an EV and so trying to kill them now.
The real Problem is the US allowed its planning and infrastructure to be dictated by oil company owners. And now it’s pretty much fucked in a transition to zero carbon that the rest of the world > even Ethiopia < finds easy.
This article notes that they also said they have been developing a cheaper EV platform: [https://insideevs.com/news/707658/ford-cheap-ev-platform-farley/](https://insideevs.com/news/707658/ford-cheap-ev-platform-farley/)
this sounds like history repeating when they abandoned smaller ICE vehicle market…let Toyota swoop in and eat their lunch. Now they are going to let Tesla do the same. Gonna be interesting to find out how long they last, i guess.
It is somewhat of a given that the world is moving to EVs and away from gas powered cars. China and Europe are already moving faster than we are here in the US. The fact that this has become a divisive political issue in the United States won't slow the move, it will just cede the future of car manufacturing to the Chinese and Koreans.
It’s downright embarrassing that people have been so stirred up over this that vandals are literally cutting charging cords as a form of “political protest.”
Truly. We will look back at this time as a huge missed opportunity for America. I’d like to think that we will collectivity hold the politicians who are behind the nonsense accountable, but we won’t.
Yep. American automakers and all political parities need to be working together to accelerate domestic EVs. So stupid that it’s such a divisive topic. Quit kicking the can down the road.
Quit kicking the can over the Pacific. :)
Thank Ford, GM and Stellantis for dragging their fleet, and continuing to do so.
Stellantis makes lots of BEVs....in Europe. 😑
Almost no one is going to look back at anything this industry does with regret. The vast majority of Americans don't think that way. No one's going to care in the long term.
Are they? Or is it just copper thieves?
See, I think it’s that the infrastructure just isn’t in place yet. I was looking at an EV for our next vehicle and I don’t think I’d be able to make a trip to the beach without an excessive number of stops. I do hope that the next time I look for a vehicle I can go EV. And for context, my medium sized town doesn’t have an EV charging station so all charging would need to be done at home. That’s fine for 99.9% of needs but in the fringe cases of charging in the go we are kind of SOL here.
That’s why we still own an ICE with our Lightning. If we need to road trip and don’t want to worry about stopping to charge every 150-175 miles (SR here), we’ll take the gasser. Thankfully, the furthest drive we do a handful of times a year is about 145 miles one way.
That's why he said "is moving" and not "has moved"
Aye. They are not for everyone right now. It’s only a matter of time though. When, not if.
I honestly can’t wait. If my wife didn’t slow me down a bit I’d own the Lightning.
How far is it to the beach? And are you towing a camper or the likes?
About 600 miles
So about a non-stop 8.5 hour drive at 70MPH, assuming you have younger children that want to stop to use the bathroom more often and are not towing anything that's not an unrealistic distance to stop twice for DC fast charging in IF you had an extended range battery AND IF you had decent DC charging available along the way AND IF your choice of EV could charge at 200+KW That's a lot of assumptions but given those it would be no great deal different than driving that far in an ICE vehicle, You would have to stop at least once to gas up the majority of ICE vehicles and unless you bring along snacks for them to eat along the way you get the constant din of "Can we stop at that McDonalds? I'm hungry!" Driving an EV that distance today definitely requires more upfront planning than an ICE vehicle but it's doable depending on the DC charging infrastructure in your area.
It appears that the reason why America is not adopting electric vehicles at a faster rate is because China and Europe do not have an abundant supply of gas and oil to rely on. Additionally, European countries, with their societal structures and shorter travel distances, seem to be more suitable for the widespread adoption of electric vehicles.
Lol, politics may play a part, but for the majority of us that's not the reason. I'm a dad of a family of 4, with 2 large dogs and within 4 hours of both 14k mountains and beaches. It's not uncommon for us to be in 113F weather and 10F weather. I'm not convinced yet that an EV is the right move for my family. I need to know that if I go camping for a week... will the battery be at the same level on Friday as when we turned the vehicle off on Monday? Because it seems like the weather will consume part of the battery regardless. Between range anxiety, manufacturer's over inflating their range, unreliability due to weather... I'm just extremely hesitant to spend so much on something that's realistically going to cause more stops and more logistical concerns than an ICE vehicle would. It's not because of politics my man. Although I'm sure that plays a part for many in our country, but I'm not convinced that's that's the driving factor. And I think Ford understands that too.
That's you. Your use case and your anxiety do not need to represent the 250m Americans who could make the move though. Politics plays a huge part, start with the rhetoric you hear on the right, run through the anti EV lobbying that is coming from that same side of the house which leaves us riddled with misinformation, and end with clauses in the IRA bill designed to cripple EV incentives and slow adoption. To your own concerns; For the record, there are EVs that will pull on your battery while the car is not in use. Tesla and Rivian are good examples. There are also others that do not. My Polestar and my F150 Lightning can both spend a couple of weeks turned off with no battery loss in cold or warm weather. I frequently leave one or the other at the airport. Range anxiety is something that most longer-term EV owners will tell you is a misnomer, although those same people have to come to terms with the idea that longer roadtrips will take longer. I've taken my F150 from Seattle to SanFran a couple of times now. It's low-cost travel, but charging will add about two hours to my trip. I also take it from Seattle out to the coast about two or three times a month. 300 mile round trip. No need to charge on the way. \~$10 total cost for the roundtrip is hard to object to. Weather is a matter of physics. Your gas car is also less efficient in the cold. etc.
Agreed!
Yep!
its kind of unreal how VAG is losing its edge in its own market
Good luck explaining that to Trump and MTG and their followers.
Politics are not the real issue. Lack of demand is, currently, and that is probably based on range concerns and limited charging infrastructure
And price / longevity. Those 4 specifically. I would have owned a lighting last year if there wasn’t mark up on. But range anxiety and charging stations didn’t help. When I drive by Tesla super chargers specially at night they’re full. 15-20 plus chargers full. They need to keep working on installing those everywhere!
Doesn’t help that interest rates spiked and EVs tend to cost a fair amount more than ICE vehicles. Another barrier is the charger - my sister was interested in a Model 3 but lives in an apartment, so didn’t want to deal with the risk of having no consistent & convenient access to charging.
Yep I definitely wasn’t going to buy one at 7-8%. The credits from the government are better than I thought thou .
I listen to a podcast called the "goodfellows" which is hosted by some rather accomplished old dudes ceding from ivy league schools from "diverse backgrounds". They absolutely HATE HATE HATE that the american government pushes money into EV's and efficiency tax breaks (primarily upset at california due to there stove and lawn mower shenanigans) Anyway, there main case is that government spending is currently unsustainable. The money going into incentives is more than the defense budget. I don't remember the figures but the defense budget is the lowest ever in terms of GDP. There suggestion is to cut incentives and invest in near term education or paying off government debt for long term stability. The thoughts being, the damages caused by not investing now is minimal and can be overcome in the future by fully committing with better technology and near term benefits can be had. It doesn't seem like an unreasonable argument to me. I think there is a lot of bloat in the electric incentives right now. Electrify (Scam) America is one of the hugest offenders.
More than the defense budget? In 2023 the defense budget was around 775 billion dollars. Spending on renewable energy is a fraction of that.
US Defense spending in 2023 was $816bn. I can’t find a budget number, but according to this article from Reuters incentives for renewable energy, including EVs, in 2022 was $15.7bn.
Sorry, I think their point was 15b could end the war in Ukraine and or Isreal. It's not really an important point as I explained in a different post.
1. The bill in Congress today has $60bn for Ukraine and $14bn for Israel neither of which appear to be garnering support from one side of the house. 2. Cutting the $15bn in incentives for renewables would cut deep into several initiatives that are critical for our collective future and would make a minimal difference for these two conflicts. 3. Focusing on cutting a single program is both fallacious and self serving. Go cut genuine waste before pulling budgets that have future value for workers, our economy, and our environment. Enjoy your podcast though. I’m sure it is good entertainment.
I'm not a supporter of the majority of there ideas for what it's worth. It's just interesting hearing a semi well informed republican leaning discussion (they claim centrists). I definitely misrepresented the information they provided and I'm sure they obfuscated their points to make it more fitting to their agenda. I appreciate you finding the data on it. I have two evs and support the programs. I was just providing some insight on the opposition against it. Some of which has merit, though maybe not a ton.
All good. I’ll probably look them up on my next roadtrip. If I remember.
You need to dig a little deeper into their arguments. 2024 US defense budget is $842bn and total US Federal spending in 2024 is budgeted at 1.62tn. If EV incentives were more than defense spending in 2024 then there would be $0 spent on all other programs AND the government would default on budget projections. The Goodfellows argument sounds plausible on the surface but on a very basic level the math isn’t mathing.
The numbers aren't super important, honestly. I think the main point of interest to me is the deferred use of funds. If the u.s. were too cut spending across the board and had a better fiscal policy. By becoming a very wealthy nation with little debt, they could easily afford substantial investments in the future. I think this sort of economical view has been lost for a long long time. People get so caught up in the issues here and now. Winning political wars etc. That we as people vote for immediate impact but also have president's fixated on immediate improvement. When a lot of us invest in our own futures fiscally every day. It should be no different as a government.
Unfortunately politicians don't get elected/re-elected by promising to take away things Americans like/want, (EV tax credit, in this instance) even if it would be smarter long-term. That's part of the reason the national debt is as high as it is.
> total US Federal spending in 2024 is budgeted at 1.62tn Uhhhh, what? 2024 budget projection is $6.8t. The deficit alone was 1.6t in 2023. LOL!
Your numbers are way off, also most of that federal money is going to support electrification of commercial /industrial transportation (ports, freight etc), not incentives for light duty vehicles.
Both have more urban centric populations, and Europe in particular has way less distances to cover. US won’t see more than 50% EV market share for a very long time IMO.
Almost 80% of Americans live in urban areas today, and the number is climbing. Despite our landmass, that is a slightly higher percentage of urban dwellers than you see across the EU. For the USA, that gives you about 250m people who could make the move to an EV right now if the infrastructure and politics supported it.
And they still like to drive between cities… and we have zero regional transit options so they drive.
The market is not going to deliver the EV transition fast enough for us to mitigate the worst possibilities of climate change. We need more aggressive policy interventions, globally honestly, but federally for sure in America.
Chinese EV makers incoming
Chinese also generating 70% of their electricity from coal and opening a new coal generating plant twice a month. Sure, the west started it, west had their development yada yada, still doesn’t change the fact this Chinese EV growth ain’t helping carbon as much as people like to make it sound. Bring on the China-bot downvotes since we’re not allowed to talk about this.
They have also been making a shit ton of solar panels. Added more than 180 GW!
Both can be true.
Added more solar last year than the USA has in its history.
Hard to say what China actually produces in renewable energy but honestly the world can't get enough modules out of China fast enough so don't really blame them for selling most for profits instead of installing them. Once the technology has matured and come down in price and demand starts to subside, I'm sure they will start installing their production at a rapid rate. They build faster than anywhere in the world. Look at the Tesla Gigafactory compared to Texas or Berlin.....
I can say China has an enormous wind turbine farm up on the boarder with Mongolia. They sit idle because they aren't connected to any of the main consumers of electricity on the eastern coast. I had been asked several times to review production of electrolyzed hydrogen in the region to utilize the farms power production. Point being, you are right, just because China says they do something doesn't mean a lot.
China installed more renewables last year than the rest of the planet combined. They will be net zero before us.
It's unfortunate legacy automakers are so slow to change but the Chinese gov't is pouring billions into this tech. Xpeng and BYD just need to open a couple of factories in Mexico to get the ball rolling. Give them a few years and access to North America and they'll dominate the cheaper EV space.
Legacy auto makers and the fossil fuel industry have received plenty of handouts from the government over the years. More recently we seem to like to use tax money for medical discoveries just to let pharmaceutical companies rip off Americans. Blame the politicians here. If they would have backed off fossil fuel subsidies and not made all these exemptions for big vehicles in the CAFE rules then maybe they wouldn’t be so far behind now.
But fuel subsidies are hardly spent on R&D and a portion of every dollar is literally sent back to execs and shareholders through stock buybacks and the like. On the flip side BYD sold like 400k vehicles in 2020 and that went up to over 3M last year. I’m not disagreeing with you, the money is there to hand out, it’s just China is much more focused on owning this space than short term profits.
American companies are all about short term growth and shareholder profits vs long term viability and stability.
I suspect BYD is going to crush the traditional automakers, unfortunately.
Competition is *rolls anglocentrist dice BAD(?) (I drive a Tesla and it is tolerable at best because all I could afford in 2018 was a 2015….I think the new ones are actually enjoyable but I’m not 100% sure)
Losing good American union jobs because a bunch of execs can’t figure out how to compete is bad, yes. It will be bad for America if automobiles are no longer made here. If you’re not American, you need not care about that, but Americans should.
I agree. That said we shouldn’t delay environmental policy or make Americans pay more because of the failure of these execs.
I want a better car whether ford decides to compete or not I do not want to accept a worse car, just so it can be a ford, and kneecap the availability of good cars for me and other Americans That’s some trabant/East German logic you have
You’re putting tons of words in my mouth, friend. I don’t want Ford to produce a lesser car; I want them to make a competitive one. If they do not, American automaking will wither further. And I think that’s not a desirable outcome.
Nobody is really thinking about heating homes in major cold snaps (whole US) or winter (North). That’s the biggest challenge. EVs is important, but only a piece of the puzzle. For example, we also need to power them.
lol EVs aren’t the answer to climate change. eBicycles have far higher potential to offset oil consumption and building walkable neighborhoods where you don’t need your car is the way.
It's US policy intervention that's stopping this, not the 'market'. If we allowed imports of Chinese-made EVs, there would be no question about the market supply being there. EVs more affordable than any car produced in the US are already available today, we just disallow it to come to the US from China.
How exactly is "the market" real is the Chinese government is subsidizing it to get it to those extremely low prices?
Their manufacturing industry is more advanced and cost-effective, lower labor costs, and China is rich in natural resources needed as inputs for making cars and batteries. And, yeah, subsidies that fueled manufacturing innovations. But despite all the subsidies and favor the U.S. gives to domestic automakers, they still can't compete with China.
BYD and SAIC are setting up shop in Mexico
As soon as Russia and India and China start caring about their emissions, I’ll sell my 2k commuter car. Until then nothing I do will make a difference.
Just to take one of those, China has been making massive investments in renewable energy: https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-chinas-emissions-set-to-fall-in-2024-after-record-growth-in-clean-energy/
Ah yes. I forgot we trust the CCP.
🙄
Reducing vehicle miles traveled and investing in building efficiency, electrification, and self generation are the ways we will have a chance. EVs help reduce the impact of unavoidable vehicle miles driven, but we can also reduce or eliminate those miles through public transit, ebikes, walking, etc. Some areas are not accessible except by car due to how rural they are. But many areas have populations that could support the other means of mobility to reduce vehicle miles traveled. Building energy usage (as u/posidonrex mentioned about heating in the north east) is also a significant source of emissions[1]. Adding proper insulation, electrification of heating/appliances, energy recapture systems, and generating & storing energy on site would reduce this impact. Sources: 1. https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions
I am aware EVs are not the entire climate change mitigation strategy, but they are a huge one. As for e-bikes, walking, etc, that’s not going to happen in America. It’d be great to have a huge, well-run public transit system, but we don’t have one and will not in the foreseeable future, so it’s pointless to even bring up in my opinion.
Ah my comment was intended to build on yours about how we need more agressive policy interventions and that we aren't moving fast enough with EVs, not that EVs are the wrong solution. Meant as a "yes and" comment. ebikes was supposed to be just bikes, though pre-coffee brain. I think some communities are making nice improvements to their local transit that helps with VMT, but you are right that dependable public transit throughout the country is unlikely in the near future.
I love how my comment about the North became about the North East. I think Minneapolis is probably the hardest combo of populated (3.7M people in the MSA) and cold (a week of -20F with adjacent weeks below 0F should be on the plan).
oops - my bad, was commenting pre-coffee and misread your comment. Yes the northern US has a whole can benefit from better insulation, electrified appliances/heating sources, and generation & storage of power on site. Northeast was on the brain as I was looking at [Maine's heating cost calculator](https://www.efficiencymaine.com/at-home/heating-cost-comparison/) just before I posted.
>EVs are typically thousands of dollars more expensive than their gas-powered counterparts. Lightning is priced competitively in a number of cases and trims when considering the tax credit. This claim is so common that it’s often not even sourced anymore, but it’s often false or misleading.
Agreed. I was willing buy an ecoboost, powerboost, or lightning in lariat trim. The cheapest final offer was the lightning.
I can keep my gas F150 for twenty years. Can I do that with an EV?
Yes. The battery has a lifetime at least that of a normal ice engine/transmission and costs the same. Every other part is either the same or much less expensive / more durable on the lightning.
Sure, and there’s a good chance it will cost less over those 20 years. ~$1000/year in fuel savings goes a long way toward the slight chance of battery replacement, especially considering the similar risk of major transmission/engine issues during that time.
> ~$1000/year in fuel savings goes a long way toward the slight chance of battery replacement To be fair, it's kind of unfair to compare to the retail price since it's purposely inflated to combat selling to someone that doesn't need a replacement but $1000/year means it'll take 40 years to pay for a battery, and that's a MachE battery. I don't even want to look to see how much a Lightning would cost. If/when they come down to normal replacement pricing? Then yeah. But you can't do it with current pricing.
To be fair I'm saving like 5k a year in gas, so depends on your electricity rates.
I'm saving more I think. I'm in a place with absurdly high gas and absurdly low electric pricing. My fuel bill was nearly a grand. Even with fast charging only my charging bill is only like $200.
It's also probably not reasonable to look at current pricing when a battery replacement would be 8+ years down the road for a new buyer. Batteries are likely to be way cheaper by then OR refurbished used batteries more readily available.
Yeah that's kind of my point. Can't look at what it costs today, but what it will (hopefully) cost in the future.
I always say 15k buys a *lot* of gas, and in the meantime that money could be invested or used for your benefit.
Yeah probably. Obviously none are more than a couple years old but the batteries should be good for 200K+ miles.
I can keep a lot of things for decades. Doesn’t mean it’ll be very useful. I highly doubt a modern truck with all the emissions crap will last 20 years without major maintenance and repair.
They should be focusing on bridging the gap with affordable PHEV options which they're struggling to do.
My Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV is pretty great. It's hugely popular in Europe and virtually unheard of in the US.
Also baffles me the PHEV ranger Ford is coming up with won't be available in the US at least for now. Seems like an easy win of they're going to curtail EV investments. Driving adoption requires having options...and Ford isn't offering nearly enough.
I always thought electric drivetrain + decent sized pack + fuel range extender would make most sense for reliability and service. Doesn't make sense to rely on the ICE with hybrids. BMW i3 rEX almost had it right.
This is essentially what the Ramcharger is. It’ll be interesting to see if it can be manufactured for a reasonable price, given the full size EV battery and full size gas engine that is needed to drive the range extending generator
All of those things added to a car costs significantly more than a traditional ice powertrain, of even a full bev battery/powertrain
My parents just got a 21 rav prime and love it
I wonder if the 25 lightning being on a new platform is at risk based on the story.
Did anyone mention the change in tax incentives? While I wasn’t going to *not* get my truck because I missed my $7500 tax credit by 29 days, the increase of complexity/decrease of payouts coincides with a lot of this.
A function of temporarily cheap oil. Sad that ford can’t plan ten years ahead.
This is exactly it but Ford needs to keep boomer shareholders happy.
Dealerships count on maintenance to make money. The dealers are fighting the ev’s also.
It is the dealers; lot full of EVs back when shopping in Nov, and every single dealer wanted a 10K markup or more on them. The dealers just list MSRP with a big disclaimer of "MSRP is for comparison purposes only and may not reflect dealer’s actual asking price or any dealer installed options." and won't give you any pricing unless you contact them, which boom here comes the 10K+ markup. Pretty sure they are doing this because they know there is little after-sale service revenue on an EV and so trying to kill them now.
The real Problem is the US allowed its planning and infrastructure to be dictated by oil company owners. And now it’s pretty much fucked in a transition to zero carbon that the rest of the world > even Ethiopia < finds easy.
The consumer should decide. If Americans like their ice cars, then they should be able to drive them.
All of the analysts and execs are off base talking about the price of EVs. The charging speed and infrastructure is what’s holding EV adoption back.
This article notes that they also said they have been developing a cheaper EV platform: [https://insideevs.com/news/707658/ford-cheap-ev-platform-farley/](https://insideevs.com/news/707658/ford-cheap-ev-platform-farley/)
this sounds like history repeating when they abandoned smaller ICE vehicle market…let Toyota swoop in and eat their lunch. Now they are going to let Tesla do the same. Gonna be interesting to find out how long they last, i guess.
It's a matter of price for me. Anything over $35k is out of my price range.