Fewer Americans want to buy an EV compared to four years ago, so what changed?

[Rudyduu]

I had the same question as you. After a lot of research, the answer is politics and who benefits. Take a look at China's goals and who they work with. Remember Newsom driving around with the Chinese president in China's EV months ago? It's about controlling the market. The top leaders in America and around the world don't really care about the planet. Look up what stocks they own. Brandon and his son and other politicians are deeply involved, and this includes drone technology and security camera's. Look up Brandon selling 80% oil reserves to China and us relying on Venezuela oil which shipping pollutes more lol. Oh how about the open borders and look up Venezuela emptying their jails and weirdly the big man getting 10% in his pocket. My post should answer 3 different categories. https://x.com/DimitriosF2/status/1806768849355694201

It's easy to control a society with a vehicle that only relies on batteries.

Could you be any more gullible? You read the things you want to believe and just believe it with no actual evidence. We didn't sell 80% of our reserves. It was 40% and it was to reduce fuel prices when oil spiked after Russian embargos went into effect. Too many Americans blame the president for higher fuel prices and now you're mad a president did something, that doesn't affect you, to keep prices down? People just can't win. 350 million barrels is enough to keep the country running for nearly two month, if no more oil was pumped out of the ground in the US and it's still the biggest in the world. The US produces around 360 million barrels a month so what actual impact does selling 40% of the reserves actually do to you and the nation's security? That oil sale didn't go directly into the president's pockets, but if you are so concerned about who's making what money have you look at your favored politician's pockets? I bet they aren't filled with money from their paper routes, either.

Do you really think your chosen political party does only things for The People and not industry and only have money from their paychecks? Where are the solutions to fix the ACA and healthcare costs? Where are the education reforms to ensure Americans can work in industry that isn't fast food? Politics don't care how much healthcare is going to cost as long as the industry is getting paid and it's the same with education.

 

[Watzupken]

There are probably more cons than pros for EVs. They are hyped out as in any products to try to stir up sales. To me, EVs have some teething issues which are showstoppers,
1. Charging time - Where you have a normal petrol/ diesel, or hybrid car, your time spent at the petrol kiosk is probably sub 10 minutes. However, EV takes quite a lot more time charging, and locating a charging point can also be a challenge.

2. Range - I think a number of people here pointed out. And just like any other battery power electronics, the battery endurance is generally overstated. For people who are on the road for long hours, both 1 and 2 are big problems.

3. There is barely any cost savings if I am not wrong. What you save paying to big oil companies are used to pay for a new battery a few years down the road.

EVs are perceived to be more environmentally friendlier, though I have doubts about this claim. I do suspect over time, we have more E-waste just like any electronic devices because they will likely be expensive to service outside of warranty period, and difficult to self repair.

 

[Rudyduu]

There's no way the infrastructure will be built before it's needed. It will only be built after people are severely inconvenienced.

 

[mbk34]

The US has a year on year growth of charging stations at around 20%. In the UK the growth is around 40%, in France it's 36% and in Australia it's over 80%. The lack of growth might be explained by poor electrical infrastructure but I suspect it's how oil companies dominate the media in the US.

For me in the UK it's a really simple choice - I can pick a used 3 year old EV for the same price as a similar ICE vehicle but I can home charge so fuel costs almost disappear, there's almost no maintenance required and I get supercar performance for sedan car costs. It really is a no brainer to me. Sure, it might be different if I regularly had to drive over 250 miles a day but I can't think of the last time I did this.

 

[Shaitan]

Let's see:
- impossible to repair, parts are VERY expensive for consumables (tires) and any part of the body kit which is MANY times a SINGLE piece of aluminum or whatever, making it impossible to fix even when you had a fender bender
- needs an EXPENSIVE insurance policy, car is declared totaled even for fender benders
- no 2nd hand batteries, unable to replace GROUPS of cells or single cells
- the range is a lie
- even in the improbable scenario where you have access to the parts and so on, the electric vehicles are VERY hard and expensive to work on (ie: you need tons of specialized tools and so on)

Ioniq 6, which I ADORE, from Hyundai, had TWO cases for having a car written as totaled just for having the battery scratched.
Thanks, never into that sh!t, sorry.

 

[Vanderlinde]

The "green" types pushed the EV as "the next best thing". Save the world! Everyone should have one!

Those things are not green. The tires, brakes, everything still throws in the same pollution such as fine grade dust. Such small particles that cant be detected nor seen; yet we breath the same ****.

The charging of EV's has to come from somewhere, and guess what. Huge piles of coal is burned on a daily basis to supply for the same energy.

And, what if a battery starts to self ignite. That stuff that is released is heavily toxic. Apart from the thermal runaway unable to kill it with traditional water (cars need to be soaked into containers with water).

 

[Uncle Al]

While "range anxiety" is reportedly the main reason people don't want them, there is an increasing number of reports of higher than expected maintenance costs, mainly from all the "stuff" that is being added but is not necessary. This is happening to gasoline automobiles as well. Car makers are doing everything they can to raise price points to collect more profits. EV's are simpler, contain fewer parts and in their basic form can be very economical but very few are being designed and built that way. Some companies like Toyota are starting to figure it out but I suspect it will take a few more generations before bigger companies get on board ......

 

[Sabby]

Price is my limiting factor

 

[TheBigT42]

And people are broke now that the dollar is worth far less and their income is the same.

Car and other big purchases in general are down.

YEP Inflation has exceeded my raises for the last 4 years.

 

[mrvco]

The world needs a viable post-lithium mining / processing / disposal battery option. Obviously most people want to be extrinsically guilt-free when buying expensive, shiny new things on credit, but you need to drive a massive amount of 'city' miles in a lithium-based EV to justify the price premium, much less the full life-cycle impact on the environment and society.

 

[Endymio]

To add some basic economics to the discussion, the purported fuel cost savings of EVs are possible only in the present. In a world where most people drive EVs, gasoline is much cheaper, electricity more expensive; EV drivers are forced to pay road-use fees similar to the current gas tax; federal, state, and local incentives no longer exist, and companies no longer virtue-signal by allowing you to use their charging stations for free or near-free, but demand a hefty profit on each and every one.

 

[nitebird]

HYbids make zero sense especially in the USA where over 100000 miles is common, the tiny batteries in them get battered (unlike ev's) and are luck to reach 100000 km never mind miles. Then it's the price of the car's worth to get them replaced.
If you want a car with an engine get one, if you want an Ev get one, hybrids are worse than both.

Prius (hybrid obviously) battery has a 155,000 mile warranty and are engineered to last 200,000.

 

[mbk34]

Those things are not green. The tires, brakes, everything still throws in the same pollution such as fine grade dust. Such small particles that cant be detected nor seen; yet we breath the same ****.

The charging of EV's has to come from somewhere, and guess what. Huge piles of coal is burned on a daily basis to supply for the same energy.

And, what if a battery starts to self ignite. That stuff that is released is heavily toxic. Apart from the thermal runaway unable to kill it with traditional water (cars need to be soaked into containers with water).

Tyres are the only real consumable on an EV. Admittedly on a Tesla 3P it costs $1K to do all corners but it would cost the same to replace the tyres on a similar performance ICE car. Most EVs barely use their disks as they use regeneration to slow the vehicle down. I've seen Tesla's with 200K miles and almost no wear to their brake pads or disks.

Many countries electricity networks are now 100% green. The UK is getting to 50% by 2030. It's a similar story across Europe. Even in China it's currently 40%. In America it's only 20%. If your country isn't aiming to move away from coal then then there's something wrong somewhere.

I've never seen an EV self ignite yet every film I see seems to have a couple of ICE cars explode into flames. Modern LFP batteries are also far safer than standard lithium batteries. We did have a huge fire in a multi story car park at Luton airport (UK) where 1400 vehicles burnt and it was assumed the fire was caused by an EV battery explosion - it later turned out to be a diesel vehicle that caught fire. YMMV.

 

[Endymio]

Many countries electricity networks are now 100% green.

Why repeat misinformation like this? Excluding tiny outliers like Iceland, Lesotho, and Nepal, which have for decades gotten all their power from geo/hydoelectric sources, the only major economy that gets more than a third of its power from wind and solar is Germany -- and it got there by (a) drastically expanding its natural gas consumption to act as backup power, and (b) by buying and selling vast quantities of electricity from its conventionally-powered neighbors, for the times when the sun does shine and the wind doesn't blow (or blows too hard).

And while hydro is certainly a renewable source, it's one even more feverishly opposed by environmentalists than the other dependable source of green energy: nuclear power.

 

[wiyosaya]

HYbids make zero sense especially in the USA where over 100000 miles is common, the tiny batteries in them get battered (unlike ev's) and are luck to reach 100000 km never mind miles.

And still there's this misperception about the life of a hybrid battery. Much less 100K miles you say? Until January of this year, I had a 2006 Toyota Prius. When I traded it in on a 2024 Prius Prime, it had 118K miles on it and still had no signs of the battery wear you say it must have had. In fact, there are many stories out there of Prius' having in excess of 300K miles with the battery still going strong.

Like my '06, and depending on where you live, a hybrid is more likely to need replacing due to the body deteriorating from rust than it is due to the battery failing. Then again, rust is just as much of an issue, depending on where you live, with ICE vehicles, too.

But, what the heck, don't believe people with real world experience; just believe the internet shills and trolls that have no real world experience and just like to repeat crap of which they have no personal knowledge.

Then it's the price of the car's worth to get them replaced.

And yet another untruth. They are not difficult or costly to replace, and you don't have to go to a dealer to get a new battery.

If you want a car with an engine get one, if you want an Ev get one, hybrids are worse than both.

I see. That's why Toyota Prius' are ranked as one of the most reliable cars you can buy by Consumer Reports - those rankings, BTW, come from real-world subscribers to Consumer Reports that own real-world Prius' - not the imaginary hybrids you seem to be referencing.

 

[mbk34]

Why repeat misinformation like this?

7 countries currently produce 100% green electricity. If you don't like these countries then fine but that's not misinformation. The UK currently gets more than a third of it's electricity from wind and solar. The UK is also aiming to get to 100% green electricity by 2035. Spain and Denmark also get well over a third of their electricity from wind and solar.

 

[Endymio]

7 countries currently produce 100% green electricity.

7 out of 200 is not "many" And claiming they "now produce" it is an attempt to imply this is some recent event, rather than their decades of 100% production from hydro and geothermal ... chosen not because they were "green", but because it was the cheapest, most reliable source available.

...Even in China it's currently 40%.

A factoid that (a) believes the CCP's highly-questionable official figures, and (b) ignores that China is currently building more than 150 coal-fired plants, and generates far more electricity from coal today than it did 10 years ago.

The UK currently gets more than a third of it's electricity from wind and solar.

29% from wind, and 5% from solar ... another factoid that assumes all kilowatts are created equal. The largest problem grid operators face isn't generating the power; it's matching supply to demand in real time, second by second. Wind and solar aren't controllable like nuclear, coal, gas, or hydro: they either always produce too much or too little ... and one is just as bad as the other.

The UK is also aiming to get to 100% green electricity by 2035.

I'll bet you $100K of my money versus a Starbucks latte from you that this doesn't even come to close to happening. Deal?

 

[mbk34]

29% from wind, and 5% from solar

By my reconning that's over a third for the UK. Denmark and Spain also get over a third of their energy from wind and solar. You were saying in Europe, only Germany can produce a third of their energy from wind and solar.

I'll bet you $100K of my money versus a Starbucks latte from you that this doesn't even come to close to happening. Deal?

It's an ambitious target but plans (and money) are in place to get wind farms producing 50% of UK electricity needs in the next 6 years. We are also working with Morocco to connect new wind and solar farms there to the UK using HVDC lines. This will add an additional 11GW of power. 6 large pumped hydro batteries are also being built to hold power during peak loads.

I think it's far better to have plans than just say it's impossible and do nothing. It's far from certain we'll hit 100% by 2035 but it's certainly achievable.

 

[Endymio]

By my reconning [sic] that's over a third for the UK.

It's 0.7% over -- if you use the most optimistic figures. Other data has it at or below a third.

You were saying in Europe, only Germany can produce a third of their energy from wind and solar.

Um, I said no such thing. It's right there in black and white: among major economies, only Germany produces over a third. Neither Denmark nor Spain qualify. And in the case of Spain, their "green" energy has driven their power grid so far out of kilter that at times, electricity costs are actually negative. Yes, they pay businesses to consume energy. Anyone who thinks that's wise from either an economic or environmental perspective needs to be locked in a padded room.

I think it's far better to have plans than just say it's impossible and do nothing.

If your goal is the good of world society, rather than simple virtue signaling by pandering politicians, then yes: plans that squander resources on fantasy pipe-dreams are worse than doing nothing. Wind and solar are less "green" than nuclear and hydroelectric. And, unlike those latter sources, you will never power a grid entirely from them. Never ever. Not unless (a) we have a quantum leap in battery technology, or (b) fake the 100% goal, by buying and selling huge quantities of electricity to neighboring states, themselves reliant on baseline sources.

 

[Che Cazzo]

A hundred+/- years ago, an older version of the anti-EV crowd, and while riding their horses and buggies, said EXACTLY the same thing about the new invention called "CARS". "Cars are more expensive than horses" duh, "they need to be fed oil instead of hay!" and "where are all those gas stations??, "there will never infrastructure for such metal beasts...". And yet, we all know what happened! Well, most of us do..

Nothing has changed. Reading the comments, human dinosaurs are still alive and well. Just add the types from a certain political party with their love affair with oil and coal and you know exactly why they are against any kind of progress. Especially one that greatly endangers their beloved dinosaur, Big Oil. Or pi$$es of their politicians!

 

[Endymio]

A hundred+/- years ago, an older version of the anti-EV crowd, and while riding their horses and buggies, said EXACTLY the same thing about the new invention called "CARS" ... And yet, we all know what happened!

Your history is confused. EVs were invented before ICE vehicles. In 1910, electric cars were more common on the streets of NYC than gas-powered cars. They died out for most of the same reasons people refuse to adopt them today: limited range, and long charging times.

 

[mbk34]

It's 0.7% over -- if you use the most optimistic figures. Other data has it at or below a third.

Um, I said no such thing. It's right there in black and white: among major economies, only Germany produces over a third. Neither Denmark nor Spain qualify. And in the case of Spain, their "green" energy has driven their power grid so far out of kilter that at times, electricity costs are actually negative. Yes, they pay businesses to consume energy. Anyone who thinks that's wise from either an economic or environmental perspective needs to be locked in a padded room.

I'm getting a bit bored of this now but if we pick the top 6 European economies by GDP we get Germany, UK, France, Italy and Spain. Of these, only Italy produces less than a third of it's electricity by wind and solar.

Green energy sources are intermittent - that's just in their nature. That means we sometimes get too much electricity and sometimes too little. This can be balanced using grid scale batteries, exporting the electricity to other countries where it's needed or offering it cheap to consumers. This is great for EV drivers as they can charge their EVs overnight almost for free.

In 1910, electric cars were more common on the streets of NYC than gas-powered cars. They died out for most of the same reasons people refuse to adopt them today: limited range, and long charging times.

Limited range? The standard range Tesla Model 3 has an official EPA range of 340 miles. In real driving at 70mph it got almost 330 miles.

Long charging times? The same car takes 15 mins to add 175 miles but most drivers will simply charge it up at home. That means your car is always charged and you never have to wait to fill up. It also means you can use cheap rate electricity so it costs a tiny fraction of gas prices.

TLDR: If you do regularly drive long distances across America then ICE is probably your best choice. If your charging network or electricity grid is antiquated then again, go ICE. If you want minimal fuel bills, negligible maintenance and supercar performance then go electric. YMMV.

 

[Endymio]

...if we pick the top 6 European economies by GDP we get Germany, UK, France, Italy and Spain

The statement was world economies, not European ones. Why keep trying to move the goalposts?

Green energy sources are intermittent - that's just in their nature.

That's the primary reason they're unsuitable for more than a fraction of total production. Germany's "green" push took it from the cheapest electricity in Europe to one of the most expensive -- in addition to raising the specter of blackouts and increasing their natural gas usage (all those wind and solar farms require backup sources.)

This can be balanced using grid scale batteries...

There are no grid-scale batteries capable of powering large cities through a dark night, much less an entire nation.

... exporting the electricity to other countries...

An excellent strategy that works only when those neighbors are less reliant on wind and solar than you are.

...or offering it cheap to consumers.

Not just "offering it cheap" -- but paying people to use electricity when there's an over-supply. And when there's a shortage, you do without.

This is great for EV drivers as they can charge their EVs overnight almost for free.

You realize the sun doesn't shine at night, right? On a dark windless night, a nation powered by wind and solar freezes to death ... and can't even charge their EVs to seek shelter elsewhere.

 

[mbk34]

I don't see this going anywhere. I suggest you just read a few books on the subject or perhaps watch a few explanatory videos on YT. I unfortunately don't have the time to explain how modern interconnected power grids work and, in all honesty, I don't think you'd be receptive to listening.

 

[m3tavision]

Could you be any more gullible? You read the things you want to believe and just believe it with no actual evidence. We didn't sell 80% of our reserves. It was 40% and it was to reduce fuel prices when oil spiked after Russian embargos went into effect. Too many Americans blame the president for higher fuel prices and now you're mad a president did something, that doesn't affect you, to keep prices down? People just can't win. 350 million barrels is enough to keep the country running for nearly two month, if no more oil was pumped out of the ground in the US and it's still the biggest in the world. The US produces around 360 million barrels a month so what actual impact does selling 40% of the reserves actually do to you and the nation's security? That oil sale didn't go directly into the president's pockets, but if you are so concerned about who's making what money have you look at your favored politician's pockets? I bet they aren't filled with money from their paper routes, either.

Do you really think your chosen political party does only things for The People and not industry and only have money from their paychecks? Where are the solutions to fix the ACA and healthcare costs? Where are the education reforms to ensure Americans can work in industry that isn't fast food? Politics don't care how much healthcare is going to cost as long as the industry is getting paid and it's the same with education.

hunh?
But there is "evidence" and we do know the EV supply chain and where it comes from. Many politicians are in CCP's back pocket and pushing EV's for the sake of another Country, under the guise of "green".
Why are you pretending?


Secondly, it was wholly unconstitutional for Biden to sell off the US Strategic Oil reserve to CHINA for a political favor, not to help Americans. Otherwise he would've used the Reserves here, instead of selling the Grade-A oil directly to China for money. Consequently, Biden has yet to fill up our STRATEGIC reserve and He keeps dipping into OUR reserves whenever his Policies or Campaign gets into trouble, trying to shield Americans from his bad policies.


Hybrids are the way to go. You don't need to plug you car in and you can use Electric when you need to. It extends the range of the car and zero need for a new infrastructure.
/eos