You’re a quarter behind. Big drop 2024Q1, but you’re right that the story has been growth - just slower growth than Tesla has promised, even with massive price cuts, and now we have a contraction. A lot of people dislike Elon because he’s a fucking tool and this has to be a partial factor, we just don’t really know how much.
You’re right that cold winters in northern latitudes present additional system constraints. But that doesn’t mean the renewables + storage strategy is flawed, it means we need more transmission and more storage, and gas backup will linger longer in such areas than it does in warmer areas. We’re still early in the transition and have a ton of low hanging fruit to capture before we need to really focus on the remaining 20%.
How does empowering working class people solve the consumption issue though?
Clearly EVs aren’t there yet for the very bottom of the market. This market will buy used for another decade and then all the sudden will start buying cheap used EVs. Used EV prices are dropping and will continue to drop, but it takes time. In the meantime, wealthy people that were already planning on spending a lot of money on cars will increasingly buy expensive electric cars and prices will come down. Pretty much every manufacturer is targeting a $10k drop in price for the next generation.
And to answer your question about where are the affordable EVs - China.
It looks like 80% ioniq 5 and 20% old beetle to me. It was a nice surprise but I don’t think they will age well.
Same, I’m a low mileage driver and when I do drive it’s road trips and camping mostly. The economics of a new EV vs my long paid off outback are terrible when you drive 5k a year. Waiting for a native NACS plug is the obvious decision for us (along with the rest of the reasons to wait).
Right, but I also think there is room to talk about where public investments in charging should go. I am a huge EV proponent but also I love bikes and transit and car free spaces, and I’m cautious about further enshrining parking in our public spaces by building charging infrastructure. I don’t think it’s as simple as any and all charging infrastructure is good, there’s room for that discussion here.
The reality is many new car buyers stretch their budgets a lot more than you and I would be comfortable doing. Lots of cultural conditioning, cars as a status symbol, etc mean lots of poor financial decisions.
This whole post is about GM’s ultium issues, which are very much real. You’re the one bringing up Tesla unnecessarily and attacking the source. This may be uncomfortable for you, but GM and Ms Barra herself talk about Tesla all the time, and it’s not surprising that EV news blogs also talk about Tesla a lot - they are the elephant in the room (at least in the US). The article also mentions Honda, and Kia-Hyundai too. Is that a sign of horrific bias too? It’s a long and detailed article that barely mentions Tesla, and only in relevant ways - GM has stated they will pass Tesla by 2025 (ok sure) and the talent comment. Your entire bias argument rests on the word 'Tesla" being in the article twice, not anything of substance, and that’s not even what we’re here to discuss.
I don’t even like Tesla personally and won’t consider buying one unless Elon is long gone and they make some design changes. But I won’t buy an ultium car for quite sometime either, because it’s a hot mess.
It’s more complicated than private network = more sales, because otherwise why would they open it at all? As a public corporation, the default assumption is that they think they’ll make more money opening the network than keeping it closed. There’s NEVI money, there is whatever backroom deals with the other automakers, there is brand prestige with NACS, there is marketing effect of getting drivers of other brands EVs to engage with their network, there is the long term view that their market share can only shrink and it’s better to ensure their customers have access to every charger, etc. I think time will show that open access is more profitable for everyone.
Nonsense. It’s plainly obvious Ultium has been a mess, and this article describes how based on quotes from Ms Barra herself acknowledging issues. There isn’t even a mention of Tesla beyond saying that GM has been reluctant to poach talent from them and preferring to use their own experience and supply chains. GM has a mystery contractor that’s clearly failing on module and pack assembly, in addition to software issues. If anything, this article praises the Chinese manufacturers that are producing “ultium” vehicles since they have more experience assembling packs.
What a shit show. Nothing but bullshit, second guessing, and mistiming from GM. Ultium is proving to be a disaster, Bolt program was great but they ruined that, they killed the volt and other hybrids but now want to bring back hybrids as if a random piecemeal strategy for power train development is remotely practical, all while focusing on big ass dangerous vehicles exclusively. As much as I’d love to buy a union made homegrown EV their portfolio is just awful. Godspeed Mary.
No, it says “not necessarily per product unit”. Your characterization of the abstract is incomplete as it doesn’t definitely state what you’re claiming it states. It’s also a euro meta analysis, not a US analysis, so extrapolating your oversimplified conclusion is even more of a stretch since we’re talking about the USDA. I’m more concerned about carbon, water use, pollinator collapse, and a host of other metrics than NOx (which is a function of diesel emissions standards and crop yield, and can be fixed independently).
I’m not saying the system isn’t stupid, I’m saying that blindly applying for every credit offer carries risk in and of itself. Plus hard credit pulls will temporarily hurt credit scores anyway. I just wanted to caveat that piece of advice for folks because I think being cautious and intentional with personal finance decisions makes more sense.
Filling out every loan offer is insanity.
This is what happens when people condense ideas into simple phrases. The quote works great when describing things like marriage equality, but something like extra days off work for some people is different. The obvious solution is flexible holidays for everyone.
Capacity and generation are two different things. Grid operators have capacity markets that ensure peak load can be met, and incude generations assets, demand response, energy efficiency, etc. Batteries absolutely coumt as capacity so long as they are managed to do so.
I can walk and chew gum at the same time. I advocate for every policy that will reduce carbon emissions, and I will celebrate both a denied permit and a carbon tax instead of demonizing one of them. Maybe if otherwise likeminded folks like yourself didn’t spend so much time dumping on carbon taxes in favor of your “ideal” policy, we’d have slightly higher support.
What an odd revisionist characterization. Schultz was active in many administrations, including Regan’s. You’re both elevating his relevance to the movement (one which your own link at the Volt describes as left leaning grassroots campaigners) and mischaracterizing the entire approach. Reaganomics is synonymous with tax cuts, deregulation, and “trickle down”. A carbon fee and dividend is not a tax cut, it’s not deregulation, and it’s the opposite of trickle down. Schultz was also a key part of Montreal protocol, literally the most effective international policy of all time. Is the Montreal protocol “Reaganomics” as well?
https://citizensclimatelobby.org/about-ccl/advisory-board/george-p-shultz/
There are many, many more people involved in CCL than you’re attempting to characterize here, including a wide mix of academics. That’s because they promote good policy.
As to the Volt article you linked, while interesting, all it says is that support tends to be static for the first few years in two countries. It should surprise anyone that conservatives in Alberta are still against a carbon tax a few years later. This isn’t even the right success metric - what matters is effectiveness over time. Public perception needs to be high enough to avoid a repeal, and not higher. You still haven’t addressed your original claim that the fossil fuels lobby is behind a carbon tax, which they so obviously are not.
Your “solutions” are a fine a slow way to transform one sector of the economy - electricity generation. That’s not enough, and it’s not fast enough. I’m not saying don’t do those things too - I love the IRA and I love federal efficiency standards and gas bans and all that good stuff, but no reason to argue against some rocket fuel to accelerate carbon reductions (and touch the rest of the economy).
Pretty sure if e.g. the US manages to pass a carbon fee, Greta herself wouldn’t say that fossil lobby won, she’d probably say great, now also do XYZ and raise the carbon price higher while you’re at it. That’s a much more mainstream attitude.
It’s much more like a mustang than a bronco. Regardless, If Ford wants to call it a mustang, it’s a mustang.