Prediction, in Which Year Will New Electric Vehicle Sales Exceed 50% in the United States "Poll"

[cwerdna]

a massive year for their BEVs if they can get the software issues fixed, ie just stopped selling the Blazer temporarily
here are the 2024 list qualifying BEVs:
Chevy: Bolt, Blazer, Silverado EV, and Equinox.
Tesla: Model 3 Performance, Model Y Performance, and Model X.
Ford: F-150 Lightning.
Cadillac: Lyriq.
Chrysler: Pacifica PHEV.

Bolt production has ended. New inventory will run out and we will need to wait until the refreshed version in 2025.

Last week of production of Bolt was scheduled for week of Dec 18, 2023. I'm on some Bolt groups and from at least two insiders (at least one probably works at Orion) and both confirmed basically they're done. GM to lay off 1,300 Michigan workers as vehicles end production relates.

I've not tracked them so I'm unclear about the situation with Silverado EV and Equinox EV given these:

GM delays Equinox EV and electric trucks, abandons targets

Production delays of "just a few months" will allow for changes aimed at improving efficiency and lowering production costs, CEO Mary Barra argued.

www.greencarreports.com

https://www.motortrend.com/news/2024-chevy-equinox-ev-price-msrp/ (see bottom)

Yes, I'm aware of the stop sale on the Blazer EV, which is also quite pricey, unfortunately.

PacHy is a PHEV, not a BEV and can't be DC FCed either.

 

[kpanda17]

Bolt production has ended. New inventory will run out and we will need to wait until the refreshed version in 2025.

I've not tracked them so I'm unclear about the situation with Silverado EV and Equinox EV given these:

GM delays Equinox EV and electric trucks, abandons targets

Production delays of "just a few months" will allow for changes aimed at improving efficiency and lowering production costs, CEO Mary Barra argued.

www.greencarreports.com

https://www.motortrend.com/news/2024-chevy-equinox-ev-price-msrp/ (see bottom)

PacHy is a PHEV, not a BEV and can't be DC FCed either.

its a mess for 2024
lucky Tesla will still get buyers due to it being far superior, 10+ year advanced BEV vehicles
great pause for the market to catch up on the low end vehicles

buckle up, cheap BYD is coming via Mexico....

 

[henderrj]

I'll point to Trump's Christmas message today since someone else posted it.

A certain person could roll back EV tax credits, roll back fuel economy standards (he already did it before) and roll back other mandates/incentives aimed at getting the industry to shift to EVs. And, he already said that on day 1, he wants to "drill, drill, drill.”

People who can't charge at work nor home will have issues that will not make up for better in "usability" and economy. As for technology, there are so many technologies and features on new vehicles that aren't EV-specific at all. Tesla (for instance) is way behind on numerous features that they still don't and have never offered but have been available on other vehicles (some of them being ICEVs) for years.

You act as though there is a large % of adults in the US who care about this enough (and actually realize this) to actually vote w/their wallets. There's probably 1/3 of the country, if not more who don't care nor believe, let alone would take the next step.

You are missing the whole point. Trump doesn't matter. Biden doesn't matter. The federal government doesn't matter! This idiocy of using government money to promote whatever agenda happens to be the flavor of the week, is pointless and useless.

I've gone around the Sun on this rock nearly 70 times. I've seen it a dozen dozen times. The government throws money at some real or perceived problem, and makes it worse than it's ever been before. Have you never been to a government housing project? Anywhere in the world you go they are cesspools of violence, crime, and worse. Government money does not solve the problem!

If you really want to solve the problem. You need to convince people individually. If every year each person who owns an ev, or believes in it, talks two people into owning or buying an ev, in only three to four years every person in the United States of America will understand how important this is, and be looking to purchase their first ev.

But Titler was probably right. Too many people want free money from the government, and eventually this democracy, like all others, will degrade to a totalitarian regime. Then we'll have all the benefits that the people of the Soviet Union had. Which is to say, it'll be way worse than it is now.

No point in this note of course. Nobody's going to have their mind Changed by a long post on some obscure forum. But, I feel much better now! Have a great day.

 

[cwerdna]

You are missing the whole point. Trump doesn't matter. Biden doesn't matter. The federal government doesn't matter! This idiocy of using government money to promote whatever agenda happens to be the flavor of the week, is pointless and useless.

I've gone around the Sun on this rock nearly 70 times. I've seen it a dozen dozen times. The government throws money at some real or perceived problem, and makes it worse than it's ever been before. Have you never been to a government housing project? Anywhere in the world you go they are cesspools of violence, crime, and worse. Government money does not solve the problem!

If you really want to solve the problem. You need to convince people individually. If every year each person who owns an ev, or believes in it, talks two people into owning or buying an ev, in only three to four years every person in the United States of America will understand how important this is, and be looking to purchase their first ev.

But Titler was probably right. Too many people want free money from the government, and eventually this democracy, like all others, will degrade to a totalitarian regime. Then we'll have all the benefits that the people of the Soviet Union had. Which is to say, it'll be way worse than it is now.

No point in this note of course. Nobody's going to have their mind Changed by a long post on some obscure forum. But, I feel much better now! Have a great day.

The problem is that price DOES matter. And, incentives like tax credits help bring the price down so that they can be afforded by more and more folks (who could afford them anyway) might be willing to buy as the price delta vs. an ICEV won't be as large.

Even in the absence of $ in that manner, look at what Norway achieved via crazy high gasoline prices vs. a ton of other incentives. See blue box near the bottom of Norwegian EV policy.

And, even w/o $ being thrown at it, Federal, state and local governments can set policies (e.g. taxes on fossil fuel companies, carbon taxes, fuel economy standards (which can force a certain % of BEVs), % of BEVs as a mandate, building code requirements for EV charging at homes, work, businesses, GHG limits, targets for being at net zero, etc.) that are forcing functions. Whether they succeed or get rolled back/watered down is another story. I think it's a pretty safe guess as to where Titler is going.

Good luck w/trying to convince people that way. It doesn't scale. Lots of people will be unreachable and/or not receptive. Even ones that I can reach, many won't be swayed to the point of voting with their wallet. No way I can convince all of my friends, co-workers and acquaintances in the US to. Some of them want EVs but have barriers as it is, in California! See post 358 in this thread, for one, a remote co-worker.

I've posted about a guy at my work people getting rid of their Leafs/EVs/PHEVs and going back to ICEVs. He had an '11 or '12 Leaf before but it's gone as of 2015 or earlier. This is despite us having free L2 charging at work (which he used) and having hundreds of EVs/PHEVs in our registry. Then COVID happened and now he WFH, but still no EV. Again, this is in California, in Silicon Valley!

In post 219 of the above thread, BRoD = Battering Ram of Death (e.g. Chevy Tahoe or Yukon is what he had, IIRC). That guy had a Model 3 for a few years pretty early on but sold it --> no more EVs.

The Chevy Blazer EV Isn't Alone. GM Owners Say The Ultium Cars Are A Hot Mess has this case:
"Sammy Kumar had a 2023 Cadillac Lyriq, but similar software woes with the infotainment screen and Super Cruise saw him trade the car in for an Escalade-V.

“I had the infotainment issue where the screen would just cut out while driving as well but the issue that made me sell that car was Super Cruise," Sammy said. "I had it on my previous Escalade and it worked flawlessly..."

So, it looks like he got fed up and traded in his BEV for a BRoD 682 hp SUV that per https://gmauthority.com/blog/2022/10/here-are-the-2023-cadillac-escalade-v-fuel-economy-ratings/ gets 13 mpg combined. The CO2 emissions per year from that vehicle are insane vs. pretty much any consumer BEV.

BTW, I've posted about my neighbor before at Who can catch Tesla ? They seem to be experiencing exponential growth…...
"My next door neighbor for some reason has 5 cars for 2 drivers. They've only ever had a single EV (currently a '22 Bolt EV). The rest are ICEV. They've had a previous Bolt and a Leaf before that. The husband seems to gallivant around in a relatively new guzzler Silverado despite gas being over $5/gal here. I've pointed out to the husband that even at crazy Pacific Gouge & Extort electricity prices, driving that Bolt is cheaper than the Silverado even when gas was $4/gal. (We have a 19 cent/kWh DC FC within 5 miles of home that is cheaper than charging at home.)

Apparently, he doesn't even usually go very far and not beyond where that DC FC is (he knows where it is too)."

Their car situation appears still unchanged: 4 ICEVs and 1 BEV for 2 drivers. One of them is an old Land Cruiser which he told me gets even worse gas mileage than his Silverado. Right now, per AAA Gas Prices, regular gasoline is averaging $4.60/gal in my city. The aforementioned 19 cent per kWh DC FC is still that price and still cheaper than charging at home here.

 

[kpanda17]

The problem is that price DOES matter. And, incentives like tax credits help bring the price down so that they can be afforded by more and more folks (who could afford them anyway) might be willing to buy as the price delta vs. an ICEV won't be as large.

Even in the absence of $ in that manner, look at what Norway achieved via crazy high gasoline prices vs. a ton of other incentives. See blue box near the bottom of Norwegian EV policy.

And, even w/o $ being thrown at it, Federal, state and local governments can set policies (e.g. taxes on fossil fuel companies, carbon taxes, fuel economy standards (which can force a certain % of BEVs), % of BEVs as a mandate, building code requirements for EV charging at homes, work, businesses, GHG limits, targets for being at net zero, etc.) that are forcing functions. Whether they succeed or get rolled back/watered down is another story. I think it's a pretty safe guess as to where Titler is going.

Good luck w/trying to convince people that way. It doesn't scale. Lots of people will be unreachable and/or not receptive. Even ones that I can reach, many won't be swayed to the point of voting with their wallet. No way I can convince all of my friends, co-workers and acquaintances in the US to. Some of them want EVs but have barriers as it is, in California! See post 358 in this thread, for one, a remote co-worker.

I've posted about a guy at my work people getting rid of their Leafs/EVs/PHEVs and going back to ICEVs. He had an '11 or '12 Leaf before but it's gone as of 2015 or earlier. This is despite us having free L2 charging at work (which he used) and having hundreds of EVs/PHEVs in our registry. Then COVID happened and now he WFH, but still no EV. Again, this is in California, in Silicon Valley!

In post 219 of the above thread, BRoD = Battering Ram of Death (e.g. Chevy Tahoe or Yukon is what he had, IIRC). That guy had a Model 3 for a few years pretty early on but sold it --> no more EVs.

The Chevy Blazer EV Isn't Alone. GM Owners Say The Ultium Cars Are A Hot Mess has this case:
"Sammy Kumar had a 2023 Cadillac Lyriq, but similar software woes with the infotainment screen and Super Cruise saw him trade the car in for an Escalade-V.

“I had the infotainment issue where the screen would just cut out while driving as well but the issue that made me sell that car was Super Cruise," Sammy said. "I had it on my previous Escalade and it worked flawlessly..."

So, it looks like he got fed up and traded in his BEV for a BRoD 682 hp SUV that per https://gmauthority.com/blog/2022/10/here-are-the-2023-cadillac-escalade-v-fuel-economy-ratings/ gets 13 mpg combined. The CO2 emissions per year from that vehicle are insane vs. pretty much any consumer BEV.

BTW, I've posted about my neighbor before at Who can catch Tesla ? They seem to be experiencing exponential growth…...
"My next door neighbor for some reason has 5 cars for 2 drivers. They've only ever had a single EV (currently a '22 Bolt EV). The rest are ICEV. They've had a previous Bolt and a Leaf before that. The husband seems to gallivant around in a relatively new guzzler Silverado despite gas being over $5/gal here. I've pointed out to the husband that even at crazy Pacific Gouge & Extort electricity prices, driving that Bolt is cheaper than the Silverado even when gas was $4/gal. (We have a 19 cent/kWh DC FC within 5 miles of home that is cheaper than charging at home.)

Apparently, he doesn't even usually go very far and not beyond where that DC FC is (he knows where it is too)."

Their car situation appears still unchanged: 4 ICEVs and 1 BEV for 2 drivers. One of them is an old Land Cruiser which he told me gets even worse gas mileage than his Silverado. Right now, per AAA Gas Prices, regular gasoline is averaging $4.60/gal in my city. The aforementioned 19 cent per kWh DC FC is still that price and still cheaper than charging at home here.

there is a lot of extravagance in the world by those with wealth beyond their needs, opposite of living beyond you means, spending wealth beyond your needs
these individuals should consider the carbon impact of their STUFF, unnecessary extra homes, extra vehicles, crap

i don't like to guilt people, but its the environment and the earth's future we are talking about
interesting for those with this STUFF, they don't see the damage they are doing

don't cause arguments, but stay the course, I do
I have two brothers with big carbon foot prints and I finally got through to one of them and they are picking up my referred, new MYLR tomorrow
amazing, traded in the X3 ICEv, that will go to someone that was considering new, this person will reuse the X3 as used and my brother will now be driving a BEV
next will be the end of life of that X3 and that person getting a used BEV
btw, I also believe in car sharing as my wife and I do
my brother is retired and should consider vehicle sharing

hybrids totally cause problems in this path, these false vehicles will have to go from new to used to end of life potentially adding 20 years of new carbon impact
the IRA should never had tax credit $$ for hybrids

lets all wish this goes a better way, again 2024 will be a mess, increasing earth temp increase, hybrid sales increasing, more carbon, new administration that threatens the existence of the IRA and BEV adoption

what happened to all of the green liberals? do NOT buy hybrids please

dont hate, have a great discussion moving people to BEVs, solar, batteries, less STUFF

 

[henderrj]

The problem is that price DOES matter. And, incentives like tax credits help bring the price down so that they can be afforded by more and more folks (who could afford them anyway) might be willing to buy as the price delta vs. an ICEV won't be as large.

Even in the absence of $ in that manner, look at what Norway achieved via crazy high gasoline prices vs. a ton of other incentives. See blue box near the bottom of Norwegian EV policy.

And, even w/o $ being thrown at it, Federal, state and local governments can set policies (e.g. taxes on fossil fuel companies, carbon taxes, fuel economy standards (which can force a certain % of BEVs), % of BEVs as a mandate, building code requirements for EV charging at homes, work, businesses, GHG limits, targets for being at net zero, etc.) that are forcing functions. Whether they succeed or get rolled back/watered down is another story. I think it's a pretty safe guess as to where Titler is going.

Good luck w/trying to convince people that way. It doesn't scale. Lots of people will be unreachable and/or not receptive. Even ones that I can reach, many won't be swayed to the point of voting with their wallet. No way I can convince all of my friends, co-workers and acquaintances in the US to. Some of them want EVs but have barriers as it is, in California! See post 358 in this thread, for one, a remote co-worker.

I've posted about a guy at my work people getting rid of their Leafs/EVs/PHEVs and going back to ICEVs. He had an '11 or '12 Leaf before but it's gone as of 2015 or earlier. This is despite us having free L2 charging at work (which he used) and having hundreds of EVs/PHEVs in our registry. Then COVID happened and now he WFH, but still no EV. Again, this is in California, in Silicon Valley!

In post 219 of the above thread, BRoD = Battering Ram of Death (e.g. Chevy Tahoe or Yukon is what he had, IIRC). That guy had a Model 3 for a few years pretty early on but sold it --> no more EVs.

The Chevy Blazer EV Isn't Alone. GM Owners Say The Ultium Cars Are A Hot Mess has this case:
"Sammy Kumar had a 2023 Cadillac Lyriq, but similar software woes with the infotainment screen and Super Cruise saw him trade the car in for an Escalade-V.

“I had the infotainment issue where the screen would just cut out while driving as well but the issue that made me sell that car was Super Cruise," Sammy said. "I had it on my previous Escalade and it worked flawlessly..."

So, it looks like he got fed up and traded in his BEV for a BRoD 682 hp SUV that per https://gmauthority.com/blog/2022/10/here-are-the-2023-cadillac-escalade-v-fuel-economy-ratings/ gets 13 mpg combined. The CO2 emissions per year from that vehicle are insane vs. pretty much any consumer BEV.

BTW, I've posted about my neighbor before at Who can catch Tesla ? They seem to be experiencing exponential growth…...
"My next door neighbor for some reason has 5 cars for 2 drivers. They've only ever had a single EV (currently a '22 Bolt EV). The rest are ICEV. They've had a previous Bolt and a Leaf before that. The husband seems to gallivant around in a relatively new guzzler Silverado despite gas being over $5/gal here. I've pointed out to the husband that even at crazy Pacific Gouge & Extort electricity prices, driving that Bolt is cheaper than the Silverado even when gas was $4/gal. (We have a 19 cent/kWh DC FC within 5 miles of home that is cheaper than charging at home.)

Apparently, he doesn't even usually go very far and not beyond where that DC FC is (he knows where it is too)."

Their car situation appears still unchanged: 4 ICEVs and 1 BEV for 2 drivers. One of them is an old Land Cruiser which he told me gets even worse gas mileage than his Silverado. Right now, per AAA Gas Prices, regular gasoline is averaging $4.60/gal in my city. The aforementioned 19 cent per kWh DC FC is still that price and still cheaper than charging at home here.

Have a lot in there! Most of it has simple answers. Norway the most obvious. They are a petroleum rich country using that petroleum money to fund EVs and using their socialist government to raise prices of gasoline artificially. Of course they have nearly 100% EV penetration! Because of their small country size and large petroleum income, they can afford to buy every person an ev. I'm not saying that that's bad, they've got the money, do what they want with it. But the US isn't anything like that.

I'm not going to worry about the cherry picking of facts, but still, it's a mathematical certainty that if you, you specifically, along with all the other EV owners, talk one person into an EV in the next 12 months, and you and they talk another person each into one the next year it will only be a few years before the majority of cars are EVs. The point of this thread after all.

When that happens there will be a Cascade of effects. At first there won't be as much demand for petrol. The price will probably plummet for a while, causing many refineries to shut down because they can't make enough money. That, in its course, will cause the price of gasoline and diesel to skyrocket. It will be much the same with ice vehicles. When that happens then you have your final adoption happening amongst those who refuse to change. All the Luddites out there.

Sometimes it is necessary for the government to govern. It's purpose after all. But in this case, the technological advantages of battery electric vehicles is so great for most applications that it really isn't going to be difficult to convince the majority of people. If all of us EV owners get off our butts and do the job! I'm doing a conference in February where I will talk to people who do not think that EVS are the future, with the specific purpose of talking them into it. Are you out there doing that? If not, then maybe you should shut up (to state it bluntly). If you are, great! Keep up the good work!! Walk the walk, don't just talk the talk. I'll count on you to do so! I originally guessed 2027, and I'm going to need some help to make that!

 

[cwerdna]

the IRA should never had tax credit $$ for hybrids

lets all wish this goes a better way, again 2024 will be a mess, increasing earth temp increase, hybrid sales increasing, more carbon, new administration that threatens the existence of the IRA and BEV adoption

what happened to all of the green liberals? do NOT buy hybrids please

I had to do a double take on this and double check. I see no tax credits for hybrids (the kind you can't plug in) at Tax Incentives.

Hybrids can't be plugged in. They are powered only by liquid fuel (e.g. gasoline or diesel). Mass-market hybrids pre-dated plug-in ones by over a decade. First ones in the US were the Honda Insight (went on sale here in 1999) and the NHW11 Prius (deliveries in the US began Aug 2000). I owned a non-plugin hybrid that I bought new from Jan 2006 until Jan 2019. It mostly sat idle, sometimes for months once I got a BEV at end of July 2013.

Federal tax credits for hybrids (the kind you can't plug in) ended by end of Dec 2010 and some much earlier. See Fuel Efficient Vehicle Tax Incentives Information Center, New Energy Tax Credit for Hybrids (e.g. for Toyota plug-in hybrids ended Sep 30, 2007) and Fact #683: July 11, 2011 Federal Tax Credits for the Purchase of Advanced Technology Vehicles.

Then there are plug-in hybrids, the kind you can plug in. First mass market one in the US was the 2011 Chevy Volt. There still can be tax credits for those.

Credits for new clean vehicles purchased in 2023 or after | Internal Revenue Service starts with "If you place in service a new plug-in electric vehicle (EV) or fuel cell vehicle (FCV) in 2023 or after, you may qualify for a clean vehicle tax credit." It also has a requirement of a minimum of 7 kWh of battery capacity. I don't know of any consumer HEVs (the kind you can't plug in) with that much battery capacity.

BTW, from Why automakers are turning to hybrids in the middle of the industry's EV transition:
"Sales of traditional hybrid electric vehicles, or HEVs, such as the Toyota Prius, are outpacing those of all-electric vehicles in 2023, according to Edmunds. HEVs accounted for 8.3% of U.S. car sales, about 1.2 million vehicles sold, through November of this year. That share is up 2.8 percentage points compared with total sales last year.

EVs made up 6.9% of sales heading into December, or roughly 976,560 units, up 1.7 percentage points compared with total sales last year. Sales of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, or PHEVs, accounted for only 1% of U.S. sales through November."

Well-implemented HEVs deliver significant combined (mixed driving) fuel economy improvements and thus lower CO2 emissions compared to non-hybrid ICEVs. Burning a gallon of gasoline yields about 19.4 pounds of CO2 emissions (Emission Facts: Average Carbon Dioxide Emissions Resulting from Gasoline and Diesel Fuel | US EPA).

Well-implemented PHEVs also can do that but ALSO can be powered by electricity from the wall/utility whereas HEVs never can. When PHEVs are powered by electricity, in most (almost all?) cases, that will yield lower CO2 emissions than running on gasoline.

 

[kpanda17]

I had to do a double take on this and double check. I see no tax credits for hybrids (the kind you can't plug in) at Tax Incentives.

Hybrids can't be plugged in. They are powered only by liquid fuel (e.g. gasoline or diesel). Mass-market hybrids pre-dated plug-in ones by over a decade. First ones in the US were the Honda Insight (went on sale here in 1999) and the NHW11 Prius (deliveries in the US began Aug 2000). I owned a non-plugin hybrid that I bought new from Jan 2006 until Jan 2019. It mostly sat idle, sometimes for months once I got a BEV at end of July 2013.

Federal tax credits for hybrids (the kind you can't plug in) ended by end of Dec 2010 and some much earlier. See Fuel Efficient Vehicle Tax Incentives Information Center, New Energy Tax Credit for Hybrids (e.g. for Toyota plug-in hybrids ended Sep 30, 2007) and Fact #683: July 11, 2011 Federal Tax Credits for the Purchase of Advanced Technology Vehicles.

Then there are plug-in hybrids, the kind you can plug in. First mass market one in the US was the 2011 Chevy Volt. There still can be tax credits for those.

Credits for new clean vehicles purchased in 2023 or after | Internal Revenue Service starts with "If you place in service a new plug-in electric vehicle (EV) or fuel cell vehicle (FCV) in 2023 or after, you may qualify for a clean vehicle tax credit." It also has a requirement of a minimum of 7 kWh of battery capacity. I don't know of any consumer HEVs (the kind you can't plug in) with that much battery capacity.

BTW, from Why automakers are turning to hybrids in the middle of the industry's EV transition:
"Sales of traditional hybrid electric vehicles, or HEVs, such as the Toyota Prius, are outpacing those of all-electric vehicles in 2023, according to Edmunds. HEVs accounted for 8.3% of U.S. car sales, about 1.2 million vehicles sold, through November of this year. That share is up 2.8 percentage points compared with total sales last year.

EVs made up 6.9% of sales heading into December, or roughly 976,560 units, up 1.7 percentage points compared with total sales last year. Sales of plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, or PHEVs, accounted for only 1% of U.S. sales through November."

Well-implemented HEVs deliver significant combined (mixed driving) fuel economy improvements and thus lower CO2 emissions compared to non-hybrid ICEVs. Burning a gallon of gasoline yields about 19.4 pounds of CO2 emissions (Emission Facts: Average Carbon Dioxide Emissions Resulting from Gasoline and Diesel Fuel | US EPA).

Well-implemented PHEVs also can do that but ALSO can be powered by electricity from the wall/utility whereas HEVs never can. When PHEVs are powered by electricity, in most (almost all?) cases, that will yield lower CO2 emissions than running on gasoline.

yes, my bad, when I stated hybrids, I meant to say PHEVs
thanks for the facts

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

BTW, from Why automakers are turning to hybrids in the middle of the industry's EV transition:
"Sales of traditional hybrid electric vehicles, or HEVs, such as the Toyota Prius, are outpacing those of all-electric vehicles in 2023, according to Edmunds. HEVs accounted for 8.3% of U.S. car sales, about 1.2 million vehicles sold, through November of this year. That share is up 2.8 percentage points compared with total sales last year.

It's funny how some things stick in the brain. Prius sales are a footnote now. The Prius (total) is outsold by the RAV4, Sienna, Highlander and Corolla hybrids.

 

[cwerdna]

I think we’re starting to hit a roadblock in EV adoption because the early adopters have got one by now and the rest of the general public either can’t afford one and/or they have no place to charge it at home or work.

One of the major advantages and conveniences of EV ownership is plugging in at home or work and never having to worry about stopping to refuel/recharge. Take that benefit away and EV ownership becomes much more cumbersome.

Having to rely on DC fast charging for daily use is a major inconvenience that most people don’t want to deal with, not even considering the lack of infrastructure which will get exponentially worse as more people get EVs. I certainly would never have bought an EV if I didn’t have the ability to have home charging.

MSN ("Car dealers had their first real EV test this year. It didn't go very well.") touches upon what you mentioned:
"A new set of customers

After years of wealthy early adopters who required little to no hand-holding in the EV shopping process, dealers started encountering a new set of electric car shoppers in 2023.

As the pool of wealthy buyers dried up and a wave of macroeconomic changes affected buyers' habits, the profile of the average EV shopper shifted dramatically.

"People are no longer evaluating EVs as 'I'm gonna buy an EV, but which one?' It's, 'I'll buy an EV depending on the value proposition relative to a plug-in hybrid, a hybrid, or a traditional ICE vehicle," Sheehy said."

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

MSN ("Car dealers had their first real EV test this year. It didn't go very well.") touches upon what you mentioned:
"A new set of customers

After years of wealthy early adopters who required little to no hand-holding in the EV shopping process, dealers started encountering a new set of electric car shoppers in 2023.

As the pool of wealthy buyers dried up and a wave of macroeconomic changes affected buyers' habits, the profile of the average EV shopper shifted dramatically.

"People are no longer evaluating EVs as 'I'm gonna buy an EV, but which one?' It's, 'I'll buy an EV depending on the value proposition relative to a plug-in hybrid, a hybrid, or a traditional ICE vehicle," Sheehy said."

Or the otherwise eager buyers can't afford the new ones because they're paying more for everything else as well.

But, it is worth noting that the general automotive market is only around 15.5M, down from 17M in 2018 and 2019, so it's also not a problem unique to EVs.

I'm an EV buyer but I'm going to try to wait until 2025 to have a chance at a Boltium, because the small vehicle options suck.

 

[kpanda17]

Or the otherwise eager buyers can't afford the new ones because they're paying more for everything else as well.

But, it is worth noting that the general automotive market is only around 15.5M, down from 17M in 2018 and 2019, so it's also not a problem unique to EVs.

I'm an EV buyer but I'm going to try to wait until 2025 to have a chance at a Boltium, because the small vehicle options suck.

A real failure of the IRA was no education. Remember with the tobacco and Oxy court settlements, education was mandatory.
If the IRA has education we would not be sitting so bad with adoption. I have people that I know say no to EVs because:
The battery will fail, I need the backup of a ICE, hence hybrid.
The battery does not last and I will have to replace the vehicle in four years.
The battery does not provide for long range and will have to stop alot.
The battery takes an hour to charge.

Crazy miss information. Sad, but not too late.
The govt should be running streaming education ads educating the public on life with an EV, charging, dependability, etc.
USA congress, please act now.

 

[David_Cary]

Price matters.
The government runs social security and medicare. There was a problem of elder poverty and lack of medical care. Does the 70 year old in the room forget this? Did government not fix this? What is the poverty rate among 70 year olds in 2023?

Yep - the federal government (and all governments) make a lot of mistakes.

Lowering the price on EVs has worked and will work. Are there better ways? Absolutely. Norway gas pricing is not artificial. It is internalizing the externalities which is a very sound economic principle. You can survey economists and they will be in a nearly universal agreement. We have a government in the US that is mostly run by money and oil makes a lot of money. In Norway, the people have a greater say than money. They are happier and have a significantly higher life expectancy and lower crime rate.

Does Norway have a lot of oil that helped pay for this? Absolutely. Now remind me what country produces the most oil and gas in the world?

 

[henderrj]

Price matters.
The government runs social security and medicare. There was a problem of elder poverty and lack of medical care. Does the 70 year old in the room forget this? Did government not fix this? What is the poverty rate among 70 year olds in 2023?

Yep - the federal government (and all governments) make a lot of mistakes.

Lowering the price on EVs has worked and will work. Are there better ways? Absolutely. Norway gas pricing is not artificial. It is internalizing the externalities which is a very sound economic principle. You can survey economists and they will be in a nearly universal agreement. We have a government in the US that is mostly run by money and oil makes a lot of money. In Norway, the people have a greater say than money. They are happier and have a significantly higher life expectancy and lower crime rate.

Does Norway have a lot of oil that helped pay for this? Absolutely. Now remind me what country produces the most oil and gas in the world?

I'm already on social security and the mandated Medicaid. It is one of the worst things that our government has done. If they had simply passed a law requiring people to put that same amount of money into any sort of investment each month, it would have been dramatically better. I will see something like a 50% return on the money I put into social security. If I had put it into anything else, I would see five times the amount of money I put in. No, social security is not good. Medicare is not good. They were both efforts to control people. When you have the money in your hands you also have control of the people. It's sad that so many are so thick that they can't see that simple premise. As soon as the government gains control of the money, they gain control of the people. Eventually you end up with a totalitarian regime.

So my original position has not changed. Monterey government promotion of EV's is a mistake. And, to return to the subject of this thread, sustainable vehicle adoption would happen faster without it.

 

[henderrj]

Price matters.
The government runs social security and medicare. There was a problem of elder poverty and lack of medical care. Does the 70 year old in the room forget this? Did government not fix this? What is the poverty rate among 70 year olds in 2023?

Yep - the federal government (and all governments) make a lot of mistakes.

Lowering the price on EVs has worked and will work. Are there better ways? Absolutely. Norway gas pricing is not artificial. It is internalizing the externalities which is a very sound economic principle. You can survey economists and they will be in a nearly universal agreement. We have a government in the US that is mostly run by money and oil makes a lot of money. In Norway, the people have a greater say than money. They are happier and have a significantly higher life expectancy and lower crime rate.

Does Norway have a lot of oil that helped pay for this? Absolutely. Now remind me what country produces the most oil and gas in the world?

And again, since you've raised my ire, look at the assumption of that statement about 70 year olds. "People are just too stupid to take care of themselves so we the government, the great intelligent and overriding overlords, who know everything, and should do everything for everyone, will take care of them."

We are not stupid. We don't need a bunch of idiotic bureaucrats taking care of us!

Rant over. We now return to our previously scheduled thread.

 

[David_Cary]

The purpose of social security was to help people right away. The money was never invested so a return should not have been expected. Expecting a return on investment is not always the best answer. When you put money in as a younger person - and it was pennies - it was helping the older person down the street not eat cat food. That maybe returns something in the form of Karma or the afterlife or just being a decent person.

If you had become disabled, you would have been covered. If you died young with dependents, they would have been covered.

Look at the poverty rate among the elderly before and after. That is results.

If you think the average person does well enough with financial planning then you haven't looked at the data.

Medicaid is a state run program for the poor. You may have had a typo. You do not have to take Medicare. Feel free to buy your own private insurance. There is no mandate there. You will have to enlighten me on "mandated Medicaid". Maybe that is an OK thing but I really doubt it. It probably is that private insurance is prohibitively expensive so Medicare is your best choice - that is not a mandate at all. The only mandate for Medicaid is rules from the federal government that spells out what Medicaid must contain - it never says you have to have Medicaid. And, again, that is not Medicare. If you don't enroll in Medicare at 65 but then do so later, you will pay a higher premium. That is not a mandate. Plenty of high net worth individuals do not have Medicare because it allows doctors to charge them more. They get better service that way.

BTW - take a poll of 70 year olds (or any age) and see what happens when you ask whether we should cut social security benefits or Medicare. You are in a minority and since we pretend to live in a democracy, you have to go to that. I suppose you could find a country with a less robust system of safety net - but I don't think you would like it.

BTW - I am happy for them to cut benefits 50% of social security tomorrow. I would love to stop the wealth transfer to the older generation. Use that money for early childhood education and reducing childhood poverty. But I am a minority so I don't expect it to happen.

In the grand scheme of things, the US has a terrible safety net. It has a terrible democracy rating. There are scores of countries with better safety nets and a more robust democracy. There is only 1 relatively rich country with a worse safety net - that is South Africa. It is not a shining beacon of anything.

 

[henderrj]

The purpose of social security was to help people right away. The money was never invested so a return should not have been expected. Expecting a return on investment is not always the best answer. When you put money in as a younger person - and it was pennies - it was helping the older person down the street not eat cat food. That maybe returns something in the form of Karma or the afterlife or just being a decent person.

If you had become disabled, you would have been covered. If you died young with dependents, they would have been covered.

Look at the poverty rate among the elderly before and after. That is results.

If you think the average person does well enough with financial planning then you haven't looked at the data.

Medicaid is a state run program for the poor. You may have had a typo. You do not have to take Medicare. Feel free to buy your own private insurance. There is no mandate there. You will have to enlighten me on "mandated Medicaid". Maybe that is an OK thing but I really doubt it. It probably is that private insurance is prohibitively expensive so Medicare is your best choice - that is not a mandate at all. The only mandate for Medicaid is rules from the federal government that spells out what Medicaid must contain - it never says you have to have Medicaid. And, again, that is not Medicare. If you don't enroll in Medicare at 65 but then do so later, you will pay a higher premium. That is not a mandate. Plenty of high net worth individuals do not have Medicare because it allows doctors to charge them more. They get better service that way.

BTW - take a poll of 70 year olds (or any age) and see what happens when you ask whether we should cut social security benefits or Medicare. You are in a minority and since we pretend to live in a democracy, you have to go to that. I suppose you could find a country with a less robust system of safety net - but I don't think you would like it.

BTW - I am happy for them to cut benefits 50% of social security tomorrow. I would love to stop the wealth transfer to the older generation. Use that money for early childhood education and reducing childhood poverty. But I am a minority so I don't expect it to happen.

In the grand scheme of things, the US has a terrible safety net. It has a terrible democracy rating. There are scores of countries with better safety nets and a more robust democracy. There is only 1 relatively rich country with a worse safety net - that is South Africa. It is not a shining beacon of anything.

You are correct, I did have a typo. Medicare, not medicaid. Voice to text and all I guess. That, is about the end of what I can agree with.

Medicare is required unless you do have the wherewithal to purchase very expensive insurance outright. A very small percentage of the population can afford that. Unless you can prove that you are required to have Medicare, the cost of which they pull out of your social security payment before they even send it to you. In other words, the government has absolute and complete control over the money.

When the social security law was first passed it gained public approval only by guaranteeing that the money would never be touched for any other purpose but the benefit of those who put the money in. Before another election even happened the same exact Congress passed a law and completely reversed that position, raiding the money for another purpose. Whatever other funding it had, clearly the funding that the people put in was for their own use, not somebody else's.

Then again, rewriting history is pretty common nowadays. Who knows maybe we've both been shown a history that's not real! But, since I verified that other fact some years ago, decades ago actually, I'm pretty sure I can stand by it. How sure are you of what you say?

 

[David_Cary]

You are correct, I did have a typo. Medicare, not medicaid. Voice to text and all I guess. That, is about the end of what I can agree with.

Medicare is required unless you do have the wherewithal to purchase very expensive insurance outright. A very small percentage of the population can afford that. Unless you can prove that you are required to have Medicare, the cost of which they pull out of your social security payment before they even send it to you. In other words, the government has absolute and complete control over the money.

When the social security law was first passed it gained public approval only by guaranteeing that the money would never be touched for any other purpose but the benefit of those who put the money in. Before another election even happened the same exact Congress passed a law and completely reversed that position, raiding the money for another purpose. Whatever other funding it had, clearly the funding that the people put in was for their own use, not somebody else's.

Then again, rewriting history is pretty common nowadays. Who knows maybe we've both been shown a history that's not real! But, since I verified that other fact some years ago, decades ago actually, I'm pretty sure I can stand by it. How sure are you of what you say?

You are complaining that they added survivor benefits in 1939 amendments? That is some kind of bait and switch in your mind? "Raided" as you say. Are you saying there was no election between 1935 original passage and the 1939 amendments? Did I miss that we suspended elections? Am I missing something? There was a filibuster about funding in late 1935 and then some appropriation passed in Jan 1936 but from my understanding, the text didn't change - they just funded it. I don't pretend to be a scholar of social security history so enlighten me if I am missing something.

When the first money was collected in 1937 and then paid in 1940 - it was pretty clear this was not a life-long investment program. Yes - the original payments were to start in 1942 and the 1939 amendments made that 1940. Again "raided" to start payments 2 years earlier?

Popular support was of course not technically needed as this was passed by Congress with no election between its proposal and passing.

I don't really think it matters now. History is just that of course. The original act was designed to exclude a majority of African-Americans and that presumably was needed to get support in Congress. Is that something we are proud of? Does that mean SS is bad today? Surely not. But that was the attitude in Congress back then.

How Congress got things passed years ago has little relevance to today. Their standards were not our standards (or at least mine and the majority of the US population today). Getting hung up on something from back then as a way of justifying your current position doesn't make sense to me. Do you really want to pound the earth and say that children of dead parents should not get help and let's design a bill to make sure the Negro doesn't get any benefits. Studying and understanding history is important also to realize that times were very different back then.

At the time SS was passed, the US was on the only rich/developed country without a retirement system. That the racist Congress of the time actually passed something is quite an accomplishment. Laws change. Attitudes change. I would not be proud to try and hold onto the past when you really look at it.

I don't think you do your arguments any favor by looking to the past too much. Embrace the 21st century otherwise you will be seen by those younger than you as a relic of the past with little relevance to modern society.

I have strong tendencies to ageism. Partly I don't see why people who have a short time left on this earth should be involved in trying to fix long term problems because they have no skin in the game. The 20 year olds are eventually going to be very very angry. I know that if I was 20, I would be so angry at older people - I am pretty sure I would be forging a revolution. Technology as a distraction must be very powerful.....

Remember it is a very small percentage of the population that can afford to buy a Model X also.

 

[henderrj]

Partly I don't see why people who have a short time left on this earth should be involved in trying to fix long term problems because they have no skin in the game. The 20 year olds are eventually going to be very very angry. I know that if I was 20, I would be so angry at older people -

I fear the moderator should probably move this to a different area as we are far off topic. But I would like to focus on this one statement of yours. It makes me ask two questions.

Are you going to throw away all the wisdom that people with six seven and eight decades have just because they "don't have any skin in the game"?

Do you not have any children at all? Do you not have any grandchildren? What kind of mind can't look to the future of their children and grandchildren? Or, even if they don't have their own children or grandchildren. Who can't look for the future of other kids? Your position is at best strange! Almost unhuman. And I don't think you are that. I think you just haven't thought that part out. Clearly they do have skin in the game! Perhaps it relates more to the fact that 50% of kids are now raised without both biological parents. That is to say perhaps it involves trust. A lack thereof.

As to the history, it may just be the Senate that was that way. Like I said it was decades ago when I looked at all this. And, you are correct. Looking at the past isn't going to form the future. But it does inform us. And, once again, government involvement always caused enormous waste, and is never as Good as private involvement. The efforts to privatize social security have been blocked for political reasons every time they've been raised. I would vote for in a heartbeat.


Back to the subject, this relates to the EV support of our current federal government. I believe it's negative. I believe we would do better if they backed out. Yes, some legislation to control pollution, etc. But to fund money isn't as effective when it comes from the government as it is from private individuals and private organizations. Let each part of society do what they do best. Government should govern, business people should do business. Obviously it's not so straight a line is that, but that doesn't mean that you throw away everything to solve one thing.

And don't forget my primary concern. Giving the government control of the money gives them absolute control of the people. That leads to (has always led to) a totalitarian government. The benefits of our Democratic Republic are tremendous. We throw that away if we keep moving down this path. That is the primary point!

(To the moderators and everyone else. I'm done with this subtopic. I hope we can get back to the question at hand. What year will ev's outsell gas cars in the United States of america?)

 

[h2ofun]

I fear the moderator should probably move this to a different area as we are far off topic. But I would like to focus on this one statement of yours. It makes me ask two questions.

Are you going to throw away all the wisdom that people with six seven and eight decades have just because they "don't have any skin in the game"?

Do you not have any children at all? Do you not have any grandchildren? What kind of mind can't look to the future of their children and grandchildren? Or, even if they don't have their own children or grandchildren. Who can't look for the future of other kids? Your position is at best strange! Almost unhuman. And I don't think you are that. I think you just haven't thought that part out. Clearly they do have skin in the game! Perhaps it relates more to the fact that 50% of kids are now raised without both biological parents. That is to say perhaps it involves trust. A lack thereof.

As to the history, it may just be the Senate that was that way. Like I said it was decades ago when I looked at all this. And, you are correct. Looking at the past isn't going to form the future. But it does inform us. And, once again, government involvement always caused enormous waste, and is never as Good as private involvement. The efforts to privatize social security have been blocked for political reasons every time they've been raised. I would vote for in a heartbeat.


Back to the subject, this relates to the EV support of our current federal government. I believe it's negative. I believe we would do better if they backed out. Yes, some legislation to control pollution, etc. But to fund money isn't as effective when it comes from the government as it is from private individuals and private organizations. Let each part of society do what they do best. Government should govern, business people should do business. Obviously it's not so straight a line is that, but that doesn't mean that you throw away everything to solve one thing.

And don't forget my primary concern. Giving the government control of the money gives them absolute control of the people. That leads to (has always led to) a totalitarian government. The benefits of our Democratic Republic are tremendous. We throw that away if we keep moving down this path. That is the primary point!

(To the moderators and everyone else. I'm done with this subtopic. I hope we can get back to the question at hand. What year will ev's outsell gas cars in the United States of america?)

When will EV's outsell gas, never, IMO. I do not think EV's are any answer, the complete supply chain is WAY to damaging!! Can we give one example, CFL's