While the world cools on EVs, Norway pushes to 96% electric sales

[mbk34]

EVs do not automatically outperform ICE or hybrid vehicles—it depends heavily on region and local conditions.

I'll just pick the bottom of the Tesla range, the Model 3 standard range. It has a 0-60 time in just over 5 seconds. I tried searching for fossil fueled cars with the same acceleration but could only find other EVs. I believe it's fairly effective on the track too. Or were you talking about spending a lot more money?

In Europe and the UK, high incentives and fuel costs can make EVs cheaper to run, but steep upfront prices, depreciation, and potential battery or repair costs can offset those savings in total cost of ownership. Hybrids often remain very competitive in these markets.

Unfortunately all vehicles are expensive here in the UK but depreciation on a known brand EV is similar to fossil engined vehicle (about 50% after 3 years). Tesla batteries are guaranteed for 8 years but are said to be good for about 500,000 miles. Hybrids are OK but obviously you have to service the ICE engine part plus you have to carry that engine around even when you're on electric. Personally I'd go for a pure EV.

In the U.S., slower incentives and higher insurance or repair costs mean EVs can often be more expensive over time. In China, EVs dominate thanks to subsidies and urban charging, but even there, high-end models face significant depreciation and battery risks.

I think the biggest resistance to EVs in the US is from the oil lobby. They seem to push "strange" facts. For instance you state drivers of EVs pay higher insurance but don't comment that most EVs are much higher performance than the fossil fuel alternative. You state higher repair costs but don't mention almost zero maintenance costs. Most of the modern world has a fairly good charging infrastructure, it's really only America that's behind.

Globally, EVs are gaining share and are a great option for many, but their cost-effectiveness is extremely context-dependent. They are not universally superior to ICE or hybrid cars. Too often, the discussion is treated as a moral issue rather than a practical one based on the complexities of individual needs, local markets, and regional realities.

As I stated, they're only good for those with a driveway and who drive less than 200 miles a day. For those people they get to pay just a few $ to fill their tank, they get better performance and they get minimal maintenance charges. Most Tesla owners just have to buy tyres and windscreen wipers even after a few 100,000 miles.

Also, Tesla sales softening in certain markets is a real trend, but it’s driven far more by competitive pressure and changing incentives than by Elon Musk’s political leanings. Politics matter to some consumers, but I don’t think the actual data supports the assertion that it’s a main sales issue so many people suggest.

I believe the equivalent BYD Seal is more expensive than the Model 3 so I don't think that's such a big factor in the 20% year on year drop in sales for Tesla. No-one here in the UK wants anything American at the moment (blame Trump) and Elon just adds to the problem.

 

[monkeylove]

One oil expert revealed in one lecture that they are used as secondary vehicles in Norway to avail of exemptions from any traffic bans, more parking slots, etc. For long trips, etc., they still use ICE vehicles.

 

[mbk34]

One oil expert revealed ...

Yep, that sounds like a believable, unbiased source of info right there

 

[monkeylove]

Yep, that sounds like a believable, unbiased source of info right there

Related:

In summary, electric cars are usually purchased as second cars, with ICE vehicles still used for longer journeys. It's similar for renewable energy: you need to pay for both the wind turbines and the non-intermittent sources to back them up.

More important, you also need oil to make electric vehicles. That's because up to 70 percent of heavy equipment in mining involve diesel-powered engines, as the dirt and ore that have to be moved around are heavy. Up to 50 percent of manufacturing involve fossil fuels. Critically, petrochemicals are critical across the board, for thousands of applications, including all sorts of plastics, fibers, and chemicals needed for electric cars. And the bulk of transport systems and supply chains spanning tens of thousands of km and dozens of countries involve cargo ships using lots of marine diesel and bunker oil.

And oil, together with minerals, face diminishing returns.

Not only that, but even water needed for production faces supply issues.

 

[Shirley Dulcey]

If they want to sell more EVs then maybe people should make the ownership experience better than ICE cars. Electric cars should theoretically be MORE reliable than ICE cars, but everyone is so busy milking consumers dry that all the computer chips in there need to be reprogrammed by a dealership anytime sometime breaks. At great expense to the owner, I might add.

So much of poor EV adoption is a horrible ownership experience and design choices made by manufacturers so dealerships can extra more profit after the sale of these rolling space dildos.

Make a normal, affordable car and people will buy it. Most people don't give two sh*ts what makes their car go, they want basic transportation to and from work. Want more than basic transportation? Go buy any number of other cars that aren't electric.

Tesla, to its credit, doesn't do that. When they update their software, it's over the air and free; you don't have to visit their nonexistent dealers. (Leaving aside the inaccurately named Full Self Driving.)

 

[mbk34]

Related:

In summary, electric cars are usually purchased as second cars, with ICE vehicles still used for longer journeys. It's similar for renewable energy: you need to pay for both the wind turbines and the non-intermittent sources to back them up.

More important, you also need oil to make electric vehicles. That's because up to 70 percent of heavy equipment in mining involve diesel-powered engines, as the dirt and ore that have to be moved around are heavy. Up to 50 percent of manufacturing involve fossil fuels. Critically, petrochemicals are critical across the board, for thousands of applications, including all sorts of plastics, fibers, and chemicals needed for electric cars. And the bulk of transport systems and supply chains spanning tens of thousands of km and dozens of countries involve cargo ships using lots of marine diesel and bunker oil.

And oil, together with minerals, face diminishing returns.

Not only that, but even water needed for production faces supply issues.

Kind of you to send me 90 mins of video and, if I ever get the time, I might well watch it.

The aim is not to stop all oil production but to stop it's use where it's unnecessarily. It's unfortunate that Americans are brain washed by lobbyists - you're told that climate change doesn't exist even though it's happening in front of most peoples eyes. Your told that oil usage is good, or inevitable, even though many first world countries are already moving positively towards 100% green energy. Where I now live, I look out at a windfarm generating 1.4 billion kWh per year. That's enough to power roughly half a million Teslas for a year assuming they fully charge once a week. That's just one wind farm, there are many around the UK. Other countries chose other approaches. Sadly America has decided to stick with oil and chosen to invade other countries, pretending to either search for WMDs or drug runners.

 

[monkeylove]

Kind of you to send me 90 mins of video and, if I ever get the time, I might well watch it.

The aim is not to stop all oil production but to stop it's use where it's unnecessarily. It's unfortunate that Americans are brain washed by lobbyists - you're told that climate change doesn't exist even though it's happening in front of most peoples eyes. Your told that oil usage is good, or inevitable, even though many first world countries are already moving positively towards 100% green energy. Where I now live, I look out at a windfarm generating 1.4 billion kWh per year. That's enough to power roughly half a million Teslas for a year assuming they fully charge once a week. That's just one wind farm, there are many around the UK. Other countries chose other approaches. Sadly America has decided to stick with oil and chosen to invade other countries, pretending to either search for WMDs or drug runners.

"Unnecessarily" is important. According to this,

List of countries by ecological footprint - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

the world population has exceeded biocapacity. That means the average resource use per person has exceeded what the biosphere allows without environmental damage and the effects of climate change taking place. Worse, that average is good enough only for basic needs.

But 70 percent of human beings live on only a few dollars a day and can barely meet basic needs, and they not only want basic needs they also want what the 30 percent have. And the 30 percent (those who earn at least $15 a day) are counting on the 70 percent to do that because their own wages and returns on investment are dependent on increasing sales of goods and services.

The production of those involve oil. Some say that oil is needed for at least 90 percent of all goods and services, from the medicine that you take to the plastics that are used to protect the food delivered from farms to factories, to even wind turbines, where many of the components are not renewable:

The implication is that the world will not only have to use renewable energy, it will have to use simpler technology (I mean nineteenth-century tech) to attain at least basic needs, and because of two issues: physical limitations of resources coupled with gravity, and the effects of both environmental damage (including pollution) and the long-term effects of climate change.

About the latter, one scientist says humanity has only two options: either have business as usual, and experience the effects of climate change for a century before lack of resources eventually forces it to cut down on consumption, or burn no fossil fuel completely (which means no wind turbines, electric cars, etc., not to mention medicine, food, etc.) for at least forty years until the climate stabilizes.

And forty years looks awfully long, while most people say "you first", especially the 70 percent who are poor.

Meanwhile, according to this source:

If everyone lived in an ‘ecovillage’, the Earth would still be in trouble

How can we live within the means of our planet? Almost all environmental literature grossly underestimates what is needed for our civilisation to become sustainable.

theconversation.com

even if everyone lived in an ecovillage, we'd still face overshoot.