Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I do believe this is what people call a "push poll" designed to promote a particular outcome.
No I don't think they will be 50% or more of all automobile sales by 2030. My reasoning is quite simple. There is a vocal minority of people who are passionate about not only the adoption of EVs but also the rapid adoption of them. They are the ones pushing hard for these arbitrary dates that are only a few years away. Most people are not against the idea of EVs and may even like the idea but are not so insistent on adopting them with any urgency and aren't going to buy them if they don't feel they are the best and most economical option out there.
These are two things those fearful of EVs ALWAYS forget. They ALWAYS talk about the fear of 100% of EVs happening ALL AT ONCE with present day supply issues and how can the grid handle that? And that their ICE cars will be taken away ALL AT ONCE as well. Both are strawman fears, setting up impossible and unrealistic scenarios then wailing about them. I'm getting quite tired of that sort of willful ignorance.
That's right it won't happen all as once, much to the chagrin of EVophiles who are promoting a sort of rapid adoption schedule that can only really be achieved with some measure of coercion. Nobody is fearful of EVs, that's more of a taunt than a reasonable characterization. People are wary of those who aggressively push EVs to the point where it seems like an obsession or even a fetish.
That's right it won't happen all as once, much to the chagrin of EVophiles who are promoting a sort of rapid adoption schedule that can only really be achieved with some measure of coercion. Nobody is fearful of EVs, that's more of a taunt than a reasonable characterization. People are wary of those who aggressively push EVs to the point where it seems like an obsession or even a fetish.
I expect my next vehicle will be an EV. I would actually not care if it was an ICE as I am after the autonomous capabilities. I am old and want all the help I can get. This is virtually certain to be the last vehicle I buy.
But there is little doubt in my mind that cost and performance will favor the EV. I also expect they will have the better autonomous features.
And I think this all flips to the EV side in 23,24,25. Than it is all down hill from there.
I am looking forward to how much I will get to see and try. I do not believe I have any real likelihood of making to the end game but perhaps the first part at least.
I do believe this is what people call a "push poll" designed to promote a particular outcome.
No I don't think they will be 50% or more of all automobile sales by 2030. My reasoning is quite simple. There is a vocal minority of people who are passionate about not only the adoption of EVs but also the rapid adoption of them. They are the ones pushing hard for these arbitrary dates that are only a few years away. Most people are not against the idea of EVs and may even like the idea but are not so insistent on adopting them with any urgency and aren't going to buy them if they don't feel they are the best and most economical option out there.
Tesla is piloting their new "megacharger" units for their semi truck - the first ones went into a Frito Lay factory in Modesto, California on May 25. No specs released yet, but the name suggests at least 1000kW charging rate. https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-firs...plant-modesto/
The current Tesla cars can’t go over 4 hours now. Co worker has a New Tesla, which has been in twice already for a recall, and they can’t (or won’t) take the Tesla to their 2nd home 2 and 1/2 hours away due to mileage limitations. There are mountains too. The range has to extend if a family is going to take even a short vacation, thus their ICE will be their weekend car.
The general view in the industry is that EVs will be cheaper to produce both on a parts cost basis and assembly cost. Simply fewer and simpler parts. So as soon as the front end costs are covered and volumes grow the EVs will be more than competitive with the ICEs.
And there are a number of new batteries coming. Three or four will hit in the next two or three years. Most interesting may be the one of Goodenough et al. which overcomes virtually all the battery problems. Still has to scale up but looks good. For those who do not know Goodenough is the inventor of the Li+ battery.
So on balance it is likely the EVs will go quicker than is presently thought. Do hang on - the next couple of years are going to be interesting.
EV's are just as expensive to produce as ICE vehicles. While an ICE may have more parts than an electrical motor, that won't make a difference. The battery itself has a great number of cells, cases, electrical circuits, and so on. An ICE vehicle has a fuel tank with just a very few parts. The EV's drive/transfer case has several bearings and shafts, and at least a pump, circuit cards, plus oils (less parts than a fully automatic transmission, but still has plenty of parts and is more expensive than the average transmission).
Metals cannot be made cheaper, therefore automobile production is not going to be any cheaper for EV's or ICE vehicles (both will be expensive). Just look around and see if all products-not just automobiles-you see around your home are cheaper today than they were 15 years ago. Even the shoes you wear today are more expensive than they were 5 years ago.
Yes, as we earn more today than we did yesterday, but our cost of living also goes proportionally higher, simply because we spend more on toys (TV's, computers, cellphones, cameras, guns, all kinds of automobiles, fancier and larger homes, and on and on), all of which are more expensive today than the years before. We make more, and spend more on products that also cost more.
It is ridiculously simple to understand that there is no way for anything to be cheaper today than a few years ago. The only way for something to be cheaper, regardless of time, is if there is not demand for it. As the world populations increases, there also is an increase in demand for products of all kinds. A demand for products relies on a supply of materials. The most scarce the material becomes, the more expensive it becomes.
I think they will grow in popularity but I don't think they will be 50% of the market in 8 years. The reason for that is let's say they get up to 10% of the market. Demand for gasoline will have decreased and it would actually make gasoline much cheaper, and probably make fuel powered cars much cheaper.
The market is always subject to supply and demand and other markets intertwine with this market.
I think they will grow in popularity but I don't think they will be 50% of the market in 8 years.
Well they will almost certainly be 50% of the market in 8 years in California and Massachussets. But the country as a whole doesn't change that fast,
The efforts to generate electricity from renewables has been going on for decades (particularly in the Western US). While many states have set goals for renewables, some states are perfectly happy with natural gas, coal and nuclear.
81.8% Idaho
78.5% Washington
73.1% Oregon
47.0% California
46.5% Montana
25.3% Nevada
22.9% Colorado
17.9% New Mexico
13.2% Utah
11.8% Arizona
11.6% Wyoming
Well both those states have passed executive orders to require 100% by 2035, so it is not unreasonable to expect 50% by 2035.
One indicator of a state's concern about energy sources is the percent of that states electricity that is generated from renewables. Of course those numbers are somewhat skewed because conventional hydroelectric is a renewable and has been a source of electricity since the beginning of power plants.
The first first central power plant in the U.S. in Manhattan began producing electricity on September 4th, 1882, When H.J. Rogers, president of the Appleton Paper & Pulp Company, heard about Edison's plant, he gathered local support to build the first hydroelectric plant on the Fox River in Appleton, Wis. It went into operation on September 30th, 1882.
1.60% Delaware
2.30% Ohio
2.50% New Jersey
2.60% Florida
2.60% Mississippi
3.40% Connecticut
3.80% Louisiana
4.00% Missouri
4.30% Pennsylvania
4.60% West Virginia
4.60% South Carolina
4.80% Rhode Island
5.80% Virginia
6.20% Indiana
6.90% Kentucky
7.00% Illinois
7.30% Arkansas
7.40% Georgia
8.40% Michigan
8.90% Wisconsin
9.20% Alabama
9.50% North Carolina
9.80% Maryland
10.00% Massachusetts
11.60% Wyoming
11.80% Arizona
12.40% Tennessee
13.20% Utah
14.10% Hawaii
15.90% Texas
17.90% New Mexico
18.90% Nebraska
19.70% New Hampshire
22.90% Colorado
25.30% Nevada
25.40% Minnesota
28.10% Alaska
28.70% New York
33.60% North Dakota
35.20% Oklahoma
36.70% Kansas
39.10% Iowa
------------- #1 source of renewable energy is conventional hydroelectric
46.50% Montana
47.00% California
73.10% Oregon
74.80% Maine
75.10% South Dakota
78.50% Washington
81.80% Idaho
99.60% Vermont
Last edited by PacoMartin; 07-26-2021 at 05:54 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
