we have been hearing hype surrounding EVs and solar for a long time. Here is the reality:
First the EV infrastructure issue:
according to the "President Biden is spending $7.5 billion to build EV charging infrastructure, but so far only 7 stations have opened from his “National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure” program, turning the program into a debacle"
Biden’s $7.5 billion EV charging stations program, which promised half a million installations, still has over 499,990 to go after…
www.instituteforenergyresearch.org
Sorry, this is propaganda where the information is distorted to make it look bad, not to mention being out of date. The first thing is that it ignores that no vehicle charging stations were going to be built in roughly the first year. However, even if there were "supposed" to be more, it didn't spend $7.5 billion to get those seven chargers. Instead, the project required state governments to submit plans as to where and how they were going to build chargers and, only after the plans were approved, would any money be spent.
Instead, only $1.3 billion had been allocated by November -- though that leads to the other inaccuracy, as of last November there were 214 operational chargers in 12 states that had been completed under this program, with another 24,800 projects (which should have multiple chargers per project) underway. As for the rest of the money, there are still thousands more projects that have been submitted for approval in 37 states (Wyoming declined to participate). Since most states have no experience building EV charging stations, it was expected to take years for the states to be ready to build and the law took that into account, with the final quarter of the money allocated to the bill not becoming available until next year. These weren't expected to be "shovel ready projects" and, instead, the law was written with the idea that it would take a few years for most states to start building the charging stations.
Last, it is worth pointing out that your source, the
Institute for Energy Research is an organization financed largely by the petroleum companies, at least one coal company, and the American Petroleum Institute, and is "often described as a front group for the fossil fuel industry." They are not a reliable source of information.
EVs typically last for around 8 years, and then the battery is dead. The car is then worthless. Now that isn't horrible, but most car owners want to own a vehicle for 10+ years and be able to sell it to someone when it comes time to get rid of it.
This is flat out false, as is demonstrated by Teslas over a dozen years old on the road still. Since you provide no links,
one article (that you appear to have possibly used, since it has your quotes) attributes that to Forbes (and is a seven year old article). The issue is, if you actually look at the
Forbes article, it doesn't support that 8 year claim. To start with, it notes how hybrids have been around for over a decade and, "But the costly battery failures never materialized. Consumer Reports gave very high reliability ratings to
every single Prius model. In 2011, Consumer Reports tested a first generation 9-year-old Prius with more than 200,000 miles on it and found that the car performed nearly
identically to when it was new."
Of course, they point out that those old hybrids used a different battery composition to the newer batteries used in EVs (NiMH vs LiPo). Their conclusion, though, "The answer is the same, for two reasons. First, battery technology has continued to improve in reliability even as it has gotten much cheaper. Research funded by the U.S. Department of Energy over many years focused on extending the number of times a vehicle battery can be charged—
into the thousands. Heat is the enemy of battery longevity, so leading automakers (with more federal
research and developmentsupport) have innovated thermal management systems that protect EV batteries even in harsh conditions."
So, basically, the article posted to support the claim that batteries will only last 8 years actually does not support that claim, they claim the battery should last longer -- and since it is from seven years ago they don't have the data to support just how long they will last. Of course, being seven years later I gave you a
link to one of the studies that states -- based on current EVs on the road -- that batteries should last at least 15 to 20 years, and could last well over 20 years..
"According to Car and Driver, EVs typically lose more than $5,700 per year, for the first five years on average, and will end up costing owners about $28,500 in five years. Compare this to a gas-powered car, which typically loses less than $3,200 per year or $16,000 over five years. The reality is that for most EV owners, depreciation is an expense that has to be factored into your purchase decision"
Again, no source for this claim, just "according to Car and Driver." Though I'm quickly understanding why you don't add the links, since they don't actually support your claims.
Now, if I go to the above link that appears to be where you got your information, again it links to an article that is 8 years old. It is specifically talking about models that are not Teslas and that have less than 200 miles of range, and often less than 100 miles of range. In fact, the article I assume you used even verifies this when they say, "According to industry experts, EV cars that have higher ranges (200 miles and over) and improved battery technology seem to have the highest resale value."
One of the things I find funny is that the article specifically states (because of the age of the data they are using), "Statistics show that not only does the Tesla Model 3 have a resale value that is five times better than other EVs on the market — it also retains 90% of its total value after three years (via ElectricTrek). Furthermore, when compared to other cars (EVs and gas-powered cars), its resale value was four times better, according to InsideEVs." So much for the depreciation claim... though I'll actually, at least partially, concede this one.
The issue with depreciation is that several new EVs came out at the end of COVID (many had been pushed back from 2020 launches) while all car prices were high due to a lack of new car inventory. Remember how even, relatively new, used cars were selling above their original MSRP because there were no new cars available for popular models? So people who bought EVs and luxury cars (and most EVs are still considered "luxury" vehicles) paid a lot of money for them, thousands over MSRP -- and once car inventories went back to normal, and even things like interest rates started depressing car sales, suddenly those cars started depreciating quickly.
For Tesla, they are among the worse now, for people who bought a couple of years ago, because Tesla started charging thousands extra on their cars -- raising prices -- when there was a shortage of new cars; and Tesla seemed to be selling all they could produce. However, once the market dried up, Tesla lowered their prices, meaning people who bought when the prices were so high were suddenly upside down on their loans by as much as $10,000 for a Model Y -- which also affected used car prices.
So, that huge amount of depreciation that occurred on EVs that had less than 200 miles range is largely not applicable any longer -- about the only car you can get with less than a 200 mile range is a Nissan Leaf, which while being sold new is basically 16-year old technology. Of course, people are buying them on leases
for as little as $19/month.
Now, to get back to depreciation on current EVs -- used EVs are typically selling now for under $30,000. Of course, the Tesla Model 3 can be purchased for $42,500. So that $12,500 you will lose on resale (if it can sell close to $30,000 used) sounds like a lot, until you take into account there is a $7500 tax credit available -- meaning most people paid less than $35,000 -- and $5,000 is a very small amount of depreciation. Of course, used Teslas are losing value now, with the boycotts, and there are rumors Tesla will again lower prices by a few thousand dollars to encourage people to buy them (which will again cause current Tesla owners to have more depreciation).
Oh, and for those seriously worried about depreciation, they can always buy used or just lease a new EV.
and then we have range anxiety,
I understand why people have range anxiety -- which isn't "real." Instead, "range anxiety" is actually charger anxiety -- it is the fear that when your EV is low on power you won't be able to find a charger where you can quickly recharge. Charging an EV, if you aren't looking for fast, is typically not a huge issue as most everywhere has a power plug.
Though, on a daily basis, this isn't any type of fear; since most people don't drive over 200 miles in a day (and they can recharge when they get home at night).
So, I understand charger anxiety -- which is why the infrastructure project is important, specifically when people travel away from home for work or vacation. At the same time, with most automakers agreeing to the J3400 charging standard (which uses the Tesla plug), and most manufacturers cars being allowed (or will be soon) to charge at most Tesla Superchargers, even the charger anxiety is to a point where it shouldn't be an issue.
Of course, it still will be because of the FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) that is continually put out in false and misleading stories and claims by groups like the Institute for Energy Research.
higher insurance costs, etc. --all of this factors in to purchasing a car.
Again, this largely isn't true for EVs, many people have paid lower rates after switching to an EV.
Now battery technology will improve, but the US lacks energy infrastructure to support widespread EV adoption --California has brown-outs because it doesn't have enough electricity right now. Imagine if 50% of cars suddenly turned into EVs? California is decommissioning nuclear plants! --where are they going to get the electricity exactly?
You seem to have ignored what I wrote -- that AI requires more energy than EVs and is what really threatens the US power infrastructure. And, as you love to point out, 50% of cars are not suddenly going to turn into EVs -- though even if they did, the grid likely would handle them. Again, EVs (as a general rule) are charged at night time, when power demand is low (we shut many of our power plants off at night).
Every car maker in the US save for Tesla is losing money on EVs --a lot of money (in some case over 100k per vehicle).
Again, the money "lost" is in large part because of having to build factories (particularly battery factories), re-tooling older factories to build EVs, and the research to try to catch up with the institutional knowledge that Tesla has about designing and building EVs. This becomes even more money when they don't sell as many cars as they projected, meaning the cost of those factories (which end up sitting idle some of the time) is split over fewer cars. It isn't that Tesla can magically take much cheaper parts and put an EV together for $100,000 less -- it is that Tesla long ago paid the "start up" costs that the traditional US automakers are having to pay and have (or, at least, had) built up their brand and some loyalty.
Now we could let BYD into the country, and Im sure they would find a market--but neither Republicans or Democrats are going to allow that to happen. No auto manufacturer in the US wants to build an inexpensive EV
I have nothing against these vehicles: they are really cool from a technological perspective, but the market simply isn't there, and they are too expensive. The country can't support them right now.
You seem to contradict yourself here saying "No auto manufacturer in the US wants to build an inexpensive EV," but then say "they are too expensive. The country can't support them right now." So the auto manufacturers only want to build expensive EVs that the country can't support? That makes no sense at all; particularly since the average cost of a new car is currently about $48,641 (most recent
number from Cox Automotive). Most EVs (unless from a traditional luxury brand) can be purchased for less than the average new car price, and then many can get the $7,500 tax credit to make them even less expensive.
Beyond that, it isn't entirely true. For example, the Chevrolet Equinox EV starts at just over $33,000, about $5,000 more than the ICE version; though from what I've seen, add the options that come on the base EV and the ICE Equinox "starts" at roughly the same cost. They are also supposed to bring out the Bolt EV again for the 2026 model year, which should be even less expensive. It is also worth noting that GM is reported to be breaking even on their EV sales, not losing hundreds of thousands like Ford.
There is also the Ford Mach-E, where the base Mach-E starts at $36,500, so also can be purchased for a relatively cheap price. Additionally, Kia is supposed to bring their EV3 to the US for the 2026 model year, and it is projected to start about $35,000.
I'll admit that there are some EVs closer to $20,000 available around the world, though people in the US typically don't buy sub-compact cars, so I'll agree that automakers are largely choosing not to try and sell them in the US. But that is less due to the automakers not wanting to sell them, but that the US market has shown that those cars won't sell (even in ICE versions).
www.power-technology.com
