Slashdot Mirror
Californians Have Now Purchased Half a Million EVs (arstechnica.com)
According Veloz -- an electric car industry group -- electric vehicle sales in California hit a cumulative 512,717 since 2010. "Months of strong U.S. sales in 2018, preceded by a strong 2017, are starting to show a trend: electric vehicles are selling well, especially in places where there are strong monetary and non-monetary incentives to buy them," reports Ars Technica. From the report: "Overall, this year has seen exponential growth in electric car sales," Veloz wrote. "Electric cars accounted for 7.1 percent of California car sales in the first three quarters of the year, with fully electric, zero-emission car sales outpacing plug-in hybrid sales 4.1 percent to 3 percent respectively." Veloz's data tallies not just fully battery-electric vehicles but also plug-in hybrids as well as the much rarer fuel cell vehicles. The group gets its data (PDF) from the blogs InsideEVs and HybridCars.com as well as a market-research firm called Baum & Associates and estimates from the California Air Resources Board (CARB).
According to data from InsideEVs, the Tesla Model 3 was the top-selling electric vehicle model in the U.S. in November. In November alone, 18,650 of those vehicles were sold in the U.S. To its credit, Veloz's press release isn't too self-congratulatory. The group writes, "Veloz recognizes that, while electric car sales are increasing at a rapid clip, it is not happening fast enough to achieve the deep cuts in emissions that the state needs to achieve to protect people's health and curb negative impacts on the environment."
According to data from InsideEVs, the Tesla Model 3 was the top-selling electric vehicle model in the U.S. in November. In November alone, 18,650 of those vehicles were sold in the U.S. To its credit, Veloz's press release isn't too self-congratulatory. The group writes, "Veloz recognizes that, while electric car sales are increasing at a rapid clip, it is not happening fast enough to achieve the deep cuts in emissions that the state needs to achieve to protect people's health and curb negative impacts on the environment."
Just eyeballing the sales graph, it looks like adoption rate is about doubling every two years or so. Should these trends hold then next decade electric cars will pretty much take over.
What many (nearly all?) don't take into account is that it takes a considerable about of electric to refine crude oil. Gasoline is effectively storage of that energy which creates more pollution to release at the point of use. How much electric varies with some estimates claiming about even on a per gallon, but it surely varies with the quality of the inputs, which includes more than just crude oil, much of it manufactured itself. Add in the industrial pollution, the gas station tanks which usually start to leak after 10 years, the gas/oil tankers eating diesel and the idea of not depending on a depleting resource, it is hard to imagine a world not better off with electric cars.
The force that blew the Big Bang continues to accelerate.
Are there still people here who believe in this "long tailpipe" nonsense?
Start reading. Or, if you just want a cheat sheet for the US: here and here.
Here's where the US grid has been heading. Here's where it's going. So note that using, say, 2012 data above actually downplays the improvements of EVs vs. ICEs. Same story with the energy used in battery manufacture (which has been falling in almost direct correspondence to battery prices)
If I was wrong in my assumption that you're an American (most people who ask this question turn out to be), let me know where you're from and I'll give you data appropriate to your location. For example, major EU countries.
Seen on a Japanese food processor: "Not to be used for the other use."
Due to small size and low utilization rate car engines are pretty inefficient even if you compare it to something as dirty as coal power plant. Practical grids have more than just coal on them too. So yeah, electric cars totally do reduce emissions.
good point ... except that the oil industry receives between $10 billion and $40 billion in subsidies every year (depending on what you count as a "subsidy"), you stupid hypocritical dipshit.
i could live a little longer in this prison
Indeed - modern combined cycle natural gas plants can exceed 60% efficiency (burning a cleaner fuel, at that). A typical (non-hybrid) gasoline car peaks at around 35% efficiency and averages 20-25% efficiency in normal driving.
Coal is such a red herring regardless, as it's been dying, keeps dying, and there's not realistically anything that's going to save it. The overwhelming majority of new power added in the developed world is solar, wind, and natural gas.
Seen on a Japanese food processor: "Not to be used for the other use."
The answer is that they're not,
Nope. The answer is that they are . ...or maybe you think internal combustion engines are a model of efficiency and that gasoline is made of unicorn tears and is carried to the gas stations by pixies riding on rainbows.
No sig today...
That's actually a pretty interesting response. I don't think you've proved anything, since people who buy new cars are by definition not exactly on on struggle street.
So perhaps the demographic is 'people who have second, third or fourth cars that are worth trading in' buy a new subsidized replacement at an overall cost to the USA taxpayer of $4 billion .
If you don't regard them as rich, fine.
Let's imagine that was true. It isn't, but let's pretend. We know that fossil fuels get $22 trillion in subsidies EACH YEAR.
Your number is absurd on it's face, so your subsequent reasoning is suspect as well. The United States Gross domestic product is $19 trillion per annum. Removing any subsidies, real or imagined, wouldn't generate $22 trillion dollars each year for the US treasury.
Beyond that, everyone who goes on about 'fossil fuel subsidies' conveniently neglects to mention those subsidies are the same expenses and deductions that every other business in the US gets. You're not complaining about special treatment, you're complaining that companies you don't like aren't subject to special expenses that grind them into the dust.
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.