GM's Mary Barra: Electric car commitment will now play out 'over decades'
Category: News & Politics
Via: perrie-halpern • 2 months ago • 129 commentsBy: Tom Costello and Rob Wile
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
General Motors CEO Mary Barra says the storied automaker's plan to turn its fleet 100% electric will now play out "over decades."
In an exclusive interview with NBC News, Barra clarified the company's previously stated intention to eventually phase out gas-powered cars.
"I wouldn't say we're recommitting," Barra said of the company's pledge, first announced more than six years ago. "You know, we said back in 2018 that we're committed to an all-electric future. But as we make this transformation, it's going to happen over decades. And that's why I couldn't be more proud of our gas-powered fleet as well."
In a statement after this article was published, a spokesperson for GM said the company is actually aiming to exclusively sell electric vehicles by 2035.
Barra's remarks come amid a softening sales environment for electric vehicles in the U.S. In April, Cox Automotive reported that Kelley Blue Book data showed that the first quarter of 2024 saw the first quarter-over-quarter decline in EV sales since the pandemic and that sales were up just 3% year-on-year.
Last spring, GM announced it was discontinuing its Chevy Bolt EV, which had previously made up the vast majority of the company's electric vehicle sales, in favor of a new EV platform called Ultium that serves as the battery system across its remaining electric fleet.
Barra told NBC News that GM now has offerings for virtually any consumer preference, whether it's gas or electric.
"I want people to choose an EV because they love every aspect about it," she said. "And if it doesn't fit their lifestyle, in that same showroom, we've got a great gas-powered vehicle that I think will meet their needs."
Tesla continues to dominate EV sales in the U.S., and although it has gradually given up some market share, it continues to command 50% of EV purchases. Barra confirmed that GM-made EVs will have access to Tesla charging stations, as well as those managed by Pilot Flying J — something that will help alleviate concerns about EV charger availability.
Barra expressed hope that further expansion of the EV charging network will make choosing an electric vehicle easier for consumers.
GM has seen success in EVs for at least one its more recent models. Kelley Blue Book data reported by Cox showed about 1 out of every 6 Cadillac purchases is an electric vehicle — the most of any brand not focused entirely on EVs. Cadillac was also one of nine manufacturers that recorded more than 50% year-on-year growth in EV sales.
It's indicative of the current trend in the electric vehicle market: They are becoming more popular at the higher end. Cox reported that Cadillac achieved an approximately 500% year-over-year increase in EV sales thanks to robust sales of its Lyriq crossover, which costs $58,590 to $63,190.
It stands in contrast to the Bolt, which was previously the most affordable EV on the market.
Barra did not directly refer to the Bolt, but said EVs will have to become more affordable if widespread adoption is to occur.
"Everyone has been talking about to really drive EV adoption, we've got to get to EVs that are affordable," she said. "And when you think this — we're going to have a model out later this year that starts around $35,000. Then with the tax credit you think about $7,500. This is under $30,000."
There are some limits to that $7,500 tax credit so closely associated with EV purchases. Receiving that credit depends on the buyer's income and where the vehicle and its battery components were made. Certain models are excluded from the United States' EV tax credit program. Those restrictions are part of the Biden administration's effort to promote EV and battery components made in the U.S.
Former President Donald Trump, the presumptive GOP presidential nominee, has expressed opposition to the Biden administration's EV push, calling the effort "radical."
Barra said a second Trump administration would not alter the company's future plans.
"We will be just committed because we think in the long term [EVs are] better," she said. "And even right now — I mean, get in an EV and drive it. It's instant torque. You never have to go to the gas station, especially if you have at your home or where you live, whether it's an apartment or your house, you have accessibility charging."
She continued: "I think over the long term when we have a very robust charging infrastructure, people are going to choose EVs, because they're better."
Tags
Who is online
60 visitors
That is the only realistic strategy given current conditions.
And, as we see conditions change, GM (et. al.) will revise their strategies accordingly.
talking to some in my neighborhood, and it dawned on me, just like they hated, and continue to want to "lock her up" Hillary, and Biden is only a few steps away from his grave, decisions to be made, that make US continue to be slaves to the Fossil Fuel Agency, and the countries that provide it.They are unaware of just how far electric vehicles have come, don't realize how many lives and treasure we have lost al to protect Oil. It decides where we go to war, without always telling exactly, who, and what for.
The damage right winged media has flown into vacant ignorant and cavernous craniums, just more and more fkd up buullshit ideas, the reason the GOP now often appears run by the insanium, seeking asylum, from the realities they refuser to ponder, cause Trump and the Repubz, ought to sound out some actual good for all policies, not just for the 1%, as they who seem HELL Bent, on Never dealing with the realities of how they vote against their own best interests, and Gowing Green is essential and long overdue, due to most on the 'right', not knowing how to act 'right', when it comes to our environment, and how excellent it could be if we weren't dependent on Foreign Oil, cause if we don't, don't ween our asses off the crude and rude dude(S), as Eric so eloquently put it, half of US, "just might be in a cult", and time to put an end to the division incisions, that
Just Don't Stop
the threat of EV's is the only thing standing in the way of big oil's egregious price manipulation at the pump.
Oh, and...
The US is now the leading producer of oil.
What are you basing that on ("I don't think the oil companies set the prices themselves but rather let the futures traders make that call").
And do you not think OPEC has any influence on the price of oil?
What about OPEC's influence?
... another example of how big oil chooses profits over patriotism.
Exactly, Big oil sets the price of Brent Crude and then creates the illusion that the millions of futures contracts that buyers and sellers employ, manipulates demand and strong arms OPEC and Russia to lower production to keep profits up.
Unfortunately that is a fairly meaningless statement, since it just points out where the oil is originating from. The US, in general, is not seeing anything from that production since the oil is owned by private industry and is sold on the international market.
That's not true. There are state and federal on-shore and off shore leasing revenues. State and local property taxes on private property being drilled. Oil corporate income tax. Tax on consumption of the finished product.
How much was that in dollars? And compare that to the amount of money the oil was sold for and to the $ amount of tax subsides the US gives the oil and gas companies.
the “current” federal income tax rate of some of the largest oil and gas companies – the amount they actually paid during the last five years – was 11.7 percent. The “smaller” companies included in the study which reported positive earnings only paid 3.7 percent.
Fossil Fuel Subsidies Surged to Record $7 Trillion
Oh, I forgot state and federal income tax on workers pay.
WRT subsides, the bar chart has 75% has implicit subsidies, what are those? Article didn't define them.
So how much money to get from them, compared to the amount of money the government gives them in tax subsides?
The Feds don’t report revenue by industry. Not counting oil and gas workers income tax, or state/local taxes or gasoline excise tax, I seem to remember $400 billion in 2022.
i can’t answer for subsides until you explain what are implied subsides.
Wrote a paper in college once-upon-a-time dealing with the pros and cons of different types of fuels for personal vehicles. Electric, fossil, biofuel, nuclear, hydrogen, X-fuel, etc...
Interesting how decades later nothing much has changed due to willful political fossil fuel industry malfeasance.
Advances in technology and batteries mean nothing at this point in time as long as oil-soaked ignorant far right-wing fascists continue to be stupid.
You fail to recognize the contributions to global warming from other countries.
So since no one else is cleaning up their emissions why should we?
I don't want to question your expertise on the matter, but was curious as to what you think about the increasing adaptation of alternate sources of energy? For example, Solar, Wind. Nuclear. (And perhaps the future use of tidal?)
Why would you think that?
Nothing has changed since you wrote that paper?
Does that actually mean there were as many EVs on the road back then as there are now? I could be wrong, but somehow that seems hard to believe!
It would seem to be a questions of values...???
I guess that people don't mind revised strategies in the future as much as they do being told, "this won't be available."
Marketing. Gotta love it.
"Just come here and sign." ...The companies do not give a shit as long as they make their money.
GM cannot control the market. It does not surprise me at all that GM (and others) would attempt to calibrate their strategy with their perception of the market. If Trump is reelected, that could seriously impact their plans.
I was pointing out that it was more of a marketing strategy than a commitment to anything.
IMO, shewas just mollifying the deadenders until they lose importance so they will keep buying GM vehicles of any type. I think that it is written on the wall already ...Along with "Resistance is futile"
Hard to say what her real motivations are. But in terms of business strategy (the angle on which I was opining) I would not be surprised that GM is trying to calibrate its future plans on its perception of the market.
Of course. In terms of business strategy, "Sell more cars" is what an auto exec ought to be saying. I think that we place too much importance on things they say and look more at the things they actually do.
Executive compensation (according to the google AI):
She, like most executives nowadays, is driven by short-term shareholder equity.
Do you think that they should not make money? Or that they are making too much money (and perhaps you are making too little?)
Just curious...
Of course. In terms of business strategy, "Sell more cars" is what an auto exec ought to be saying. I think that we place too much importance on things they say and look more at the things they actually do.
Making money from selling EVs? How's that going?
Ford (F) said it will lose $3 billion on its sales of electric vehicles to consumers this year . . .
The $3 billion loss is roughly equal to what it lost on EVs on that basis the last two years combined.
It said it lost about $900 million in 2021 and $ 2.1 billion in 2022. It’s the first time it gave a breakout of the results from its EV operations.
What, exactly, do you love about it???
(Well, I personally don't like most TV commercials, I must say there are some I did enjoy):
Nowadays?
So no longer being concerned about the climate disasters around the world that we're watching on TV, and knowing damn well it's going to get worse until armageddon, which is probably sooner to happen than later, means we should keep going with oil, and make sure Americans will not be able to buy the affordable Chinese EV cars, because after all, save those votes, sorry I mean save those jobs that will soon be lost to robotics anyway, but then maybe we can block the robotics as well. Merrily we go to hell, go to hell, go to hell. Merrily we go to hell, smiling all the way.
Could it be that Mary Barra is concerned about losing her multi-million dollar salary too soon to enable her to buy her private island and French vinyard and Scottish castle and NYC penthouse and private jet and 150 foot yacht and....and...
She can already afford all of that.
While I agree that a conversion to non-hydrocarbon fueled vehicle sis needed and inevitable, it is not something that must be done or can be done in the next few dozen months. The transition will likely take a a few decades to insure that the transition is smooth, functional and affordable to the American people.
The purpose of the transition is not to cede the auto industry to China, but rather to make the changes within the American auto industry.
Your comment seems to skirt key issues to the transition and focus more on denigrating a person because of her wealth and position, the climate issue was not created by Ms Barra
Too many people espouse a "singular, simple" solution for a comlex problem not realizing that their proposed solution is neither singular nor simple.
In order of importance, my comment started with my concern about the climate, and Ms. Barra's wealth was just an add-on. I'm amused that you reversed my order of importance. And there is no "simple solution" to the major problem - but EVs would at least be a step in the right direction.
Why is her personal wealth an issue at all?
Plutophobia is too easy for too many
I recognize climate issues and support the move to non carbon based vehicles and other initiatives, but I find no need to denigrate anyone to present my point of view.
You did not prioritize your points, you simply presented them
EVs would at least be a step in the right direction.
You ar right and we are still taking that step just not as quickly as some would like and certainly not by conceding the control of the global auto industry to China.
Allow me to take you back to the late 1950s when I was the Editor-in-Chief of my university's weekly student newspaper. What I learned was that when writing about something, one starts with that which is most important and the importance reduces as the written piece continues to the end, which is of the least importance. Actually there is a reason for that method. Sometimes there is not room for a whole article on the page, so to fit it the least important is chopped off.
You again skipped the part about your need to denigrate Ms Barra as being a priority part of your presentation when it is immaterial.
Not sure what your acitvitie sin the 1950's have to do with anything, especially with this deiscussion
But since one famous environmentalist flies around in his private jet to spread the word (get to their global gigs), AGW is obviously a liberal scam. It's not.
Yep, ultra-consumerism is more than a bit distasteful to me as well.
Fuck the uber wealthy who can afford to pay my two-month income to see a Taylor Swift concert from the nose-bleed section!
And paramedics still make close to minimum wage working 24 hour shifts for risking their lives to save the lives of drug addled rich folk who just crashed their Ferraris.
But I digress.
It was my instinctive concern that in the event of a massive change in direction for GM that someone more expert in what the future brings might be more palatable to the shareholders and Board of Directors than one generated from the previous processes. In other words, in case that is beyond comprehension, I think she could be concerned about the future of her job. And AGAIN, with the comment you were just unable to understand meant that my original paragraph at the END of my comment was, at least to me, of lesser importance the first one.
Yup.
Welcome to the Internet!
Of course it will get worse, but the thing is it isn't us. My concern is for my families land, if the family is still in control of it many, many generations into the future, is that they will be powerless against the one mile thick ice sheet bearing down on the land from the north and eventually wiping it clean.
The low areas of land like Florida will be submerged by the ocean which is anything below 25' above sea level now, it's inevitable and can't be stopped. This notion that the warming is caused by CO2 and man is adding to the naturally increasing levels and its our addition that is causing the warming is false and from this false notion we get the thinking that we can change the climate warming or even stop it by just stop producing CO2, this notion is just plain BS. CO2 isn't driving the warming, the warming is driving the CO2 levels even before we entered the picture. The temperatures were rising before us, the CO2 levels were rising before us, and the sea levels have been dramatically rising before us. What we are witnessing is the prelude to the next ice age.
Everything you just posted was a far-right wing fossil fuel industry lie!
[✘] Just parroting some Heartland Institute propaganda?[✘]
If a new ice-age is inevitable, perhaps all the nations of the world should work together to seek out another planet to fuck up and a way for us to get there. The 2016 movie Passengers indicates a direction that could be taken - AI and robotics could get us there. Or maybe we should just burrow out underground cities using Earth's central core for warmth and nuclear fusion for power. Humanity could be innovative if it were cooperative, could it not? Unfortunately some feel they have to be "the best" and do what they can to roadblock advancement by others.
What's really odd about your post is why am I the only one making this claim?
It's not "if" it's " is" inevitable.
Prior to every ice age the sea levels were at least 23 feet higher than they are now. NASA's own historic CO2 level charts, which go back 800,000 years, show the CO2 levels are highest just prior to every ice age.
Just the facts that the sea levels and CO2 levels rise before the ice starts accumulating on land means the climate must get warmer and continues to be warm until the accumulating ice on land reduces the sea levels which cools the climate ending the ice age.
Ice ages are part of the water cycle of this planet which take about 100,000 years to complete.
I need to ask a question, just what do you think causes an ice age?
This question isn't just for you, others can weigh in too.
Perhaps we should heed what Jack Hall (Dennis Quaid) had to say in the movie The Day After Tomorrow. What we see in that movie could well become another example of Life Imitating Art.
That movie was made using the assumption that a mammoth instantly froze with a summertime flowering plant still in it's mouth. However the movie was made to be as close to science as possible even though the current science is faulty and based on assumptions. Part of the science was that the sea levels were higher prior to the beginning of an ice age so they put in the flooding of NYC, which is great and all, but the sea level rise happens to every coastline world wide, so where did all that extra water come from? There are only two places that all that water can come from and it needs to get warmer in those places to achieve this. Another line was about the AMOC and the infiltration of fresh water from the Greenland melting ice sheets disrupting it, in which another scientist remarked something like "We all know that" that needs to be modified to "We all assume that" because it has never been witnessed before and they are relying on models that they themselves have put assumed data in.
I think the movie would be even a scarier prediction if the science in it were perfectly accurate. It's hard to be perfect in predicting what tomorrow's weather is going to be, but in any event, it was just a movie.
Ticking Time Bomb
The thing is that this "ticking time bomb" has happened at least 7 times before us and we are still here.
I have problems with both sides of the climate argument. On the one side I agree with Al Gore and his movie "Inconvenient Truth" about the future coastlines with the higher sea levels, I disagree with his causation reasoning that man is the blame and therefore man can change it, no man is not the cause and man can't change it. On the other side where there is little to no change and what we have now has been this and will always be close to what we have now, that isn't right either, but I do agree that man is not the cause.
AGW is based on CO2 and therefore man is to blame and can therefore fix it. I've yet to see where CO2 is even a greenhouse gas, and if it were it only makes up .04% of the atmosphere, that's one molecule per 25,000 molecules and free atoms. CO2 is no more a greenhouse gas as is oxygen, nitrogen, or even argon.
The meme of the Arctic Ocean as the "ticking time bomb" is rather appropriate. As the ice sheets of Greenland and some from the Antarctic melt into the oceans the higher sea levels will transport more warm water into the Arctic Ocean even through the winters causing the lift needed for the added precipitation to build the ice sheets of the ice age. With the added evaporation from the ocean the salinity will increase lowering the temperature in which the water will freeze. Ice ages are caused by higher sea levels moving warmer water into the cooler latitudes of the north and also into the south.
Thanks for explaining that. I don't have the scientific expertise to fully understand what's happening.
Is there any possiblity that global warming might stop that? (Or is this whole global warming thing a hoax?)
Then what is causing the warming?
(Asking for a friend
)
Um, no...
Less Florida is always a good thing.
[✘]
Is there any possiblity that global warming might stop that?
No. Global warming is what will cause the next ice age because the long term water cycle dictates that.
(Or is this whole global warming thing a hoax?)
More like a misunderstanding because of the use of assumptions. One of the major assumptions was made by Milankovitch. When they first learned there were ice ages, he went about trying to explain them using earth's positioning with the sun because from the term "Ice Age" he assumed the climate had to be colder for there to be one.
Another assumption also shows up in the chart MrFrost used, CO2 level rises aren't causing the warming they are rising because of the warming.
Then what is causing the warming?
The long term water cycle which runs it's course over approximately every 100,000 years as the chart that MrFrost posted further down.
Um yes. Note the rises in CO2 prior to every ice age. As the ice melts from the previous ice age it releases CO2 that was captured by the formation of the ice sheets and just the opposite happens as the ice sheets form. Also note that the last rise (before 1950) puts us in the timeline of nearing the next ice age.
Also ask yourself this, this chart was derived from ice cores done in the Antarctic in a sheet of ice 2-1/2 miles thick and goes back to 800,000 years, now that is what a colder climate does, but the ice sheets of the ice ages were averaging one mile thick plus whatever it took to maintain the thickness through summers down past the 45th parallel at least seven times in that same 800,000 years, do you think that it is an entirely different dynamic other than it's colder that produces such an event?
that's not the only thing it releases, into the atmosphere and eventually our food chain...
Ok, now I got it. Those diseases were there before they got locked into the permafrost and as the added snow cover that accompanies the next ice age will insulate the ground and melt the permafrost which is what has always happened before. Even though it's name suggests it, permafrost isn't permanent.
Could be that Mary Barra is looking at the reduced demand for EV's and making a sound business decision. Sales are down for these products for a variety of reasons. Why would Americans want to buy Chinese junk instead of American made cars and light trucks. These vehicles are still not affordable to the average American consumer because of Biden's awful economy.
Chinese junk? Well not so long ago I had a ride in a Chinese EV, and it was the smoothest quietest car ride I've ever had in my life. So have you had a ride in one, or driven one, that gives you the experience to call it junk? You see, Greg, when you make statements like that, then everything you say lacks credibility.
In my most humble opinion, the only good thing to come out of Communist China is Yuja Wang. I have no love for your adopted country and consider them to be an enemy to the US.
Yuja Wang performs | Piano Concerto No. 2 in Cm Op. 18 by Rachmaninov - in Munich city (youtube.com)
A comment posted by a person who has probably never been to China and therefore the comment bears no veracity, merely blatant ignorant bias and prejudice.
I have not "adopted" China, I am a Canadian citizen, and I'm no more than a "guest" in China and have to renew my visa every three years, a visa based on visiting family (my wife).
The rest of the story is that China contributes more harmful emissions to the atmosphere by far than any other country in the world, so we should be looking for an internal solution rather than counting on the Chinese to provide a climate change solution
Just four regions accounted for about two-thirds of global fossil-fuel carbon emissions in 2021: China (31 per cent), the USA (14 per cent), the EU27; 7 per cent), and India (7 per cent).
What are the sources of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? - CSIRO
Yuja Wang and Khatia Buniatishvili have both brought centerfold visuals to the concert stage.
Yes, Robert, China should be spanked for having about 4.5 times the population of the USA, but if one were not being prejudicial one might consider that on a proper measure, i.e. a PER CAPITA basis, Americans are at least TWICE as much responsible for emissions than the Chinese are.
Using your argument, the Chinese can be blamed for eating more food than Americans do, or breathing more air than Americans do. Janet Yellin has already blamed China for too much green energy production - a real "sin" in our dying world.
Re your per capita point
i.e. a PER CAPITA basis, Americans are at least TWICE as much responsible for emissions than the Chinese are.
That is in fact incorrect!
By this measure, the U.S. has the thirteenth-highest per capita emissions at 13.68 tons, while Russia is 20th (11.64), Japan is 26th (8.39), China is 28th (8.20), and India is 110th with a mere 1.74 tons per capita.
China is the largest emitter of CO 2 in the world, with 11680 Mt (11.680 GT) of carbon dioxide emissions in 2020. This is just over 32% of the world’s total 2020 emissions. The United States released the second-highest amount of carbon emissions at 4.535 GT, or roughly 12.6% of the total global emissions .
Carbon Footprint by Country 2024 (worldpopulationreview.com)
So from your perspective, China's populations is about 18% of the world population and they contribute 32% f the carbon pollution
And more importantly they do not care in the least.
In my view, China is not to be admire, emulated or relied upon in any aspect of economic, societal or international relations.
I stand by what I said - the facts you posted are very little different. I don't have much respect or admiration for America these days either. I used to love America, spent a lot of time in that nation, even owned property there, but IMO it has since turned to shit in many ways and on many levels - personal safety, legal, political, educational, international relations, even environmental, what have you..... I feel sorry for good people who have to live there.
I respect your view of the U.S. while totally disagreeing with it - the idea that "people in general" are better off under the Communis t Chinese regime than in the U.S. is ludicrous in my view, but perhaps you spent too much time in high crime areas of the U.S.
I feel totally safe every day, have had the opportunity to rise from modest means to middle class and am happily retired watching my children grandchildren and great grandchildren grow up in the country our family has served in the military and public service for generations.
Buy American means something to me - I long for the day when more Americans feel the same way.
You say that the U.S. "has turned to shit" - does the Chinese government still put people in prison for dissenting opinions, for demonstrating against the current regime, etc etc .
I like Chinese food other than that you can have China to yourself.
Thanks for the discussion as always
Yeah-- one of these:
(P.S. I've never ridden in one-- waiting 'til they're solar powered!)
Well, I respect your preference for your nation as well, and I can understand your feelings about it. However, I have experienced in depth more than one way of life, more than one manner of governing, and personally I prefer the peace and tranquility, including a life without guns, or families split up and fighting over differing political loyalties, and I prefer being able to afford a very comfortable life on a meagre Canadian government pension that would put me and my wife if we were in Canada or the USA in a single rooming house room with a shared toilet and shower down the hall and a shared kitchen downstairs, IF that luxury were available. Sure some Chinese people want to look for the end of their personal rainbow, but the percentage who do so compared to the percentage who are happy here is probably a lot less than the percentage of Americans who are unhappy with America these days. Anyway, Robert, YOU'RE happy, and I assume your loved ones are, so that's what's important.
By the way, I have been through and spent more time in and all over America than I'll bet you have spent in any nation other than the USA, from the time my mother brought me as a tiny infant in a basket to Baltimore to visit family relatives, the first American city I was in, until the time I attended my son's wedding in Baltimore, around 16 or 17 years ago, the last American city I was ever in, and I will admit that since that latter time I only know what I have read and seen on newsreels on TV or the internet, or heard directly from my son who lives in Milwuakee, so perhaps my view of life in America since I was there is jaded somewhat, but then you've probably never been to China, so perhaps your view of Chins is jaded somewhat as well.
Oh, and I know that Americans like to aim their barbs at the fact that China does put people in prison for some reasons other than America does, mainly for the purpose of maintaining peace and tranquility in the nation, but then I don't usually want to embarrass anyone by pointing out that America has the highest ratio of people incarcerated than any other nation, or that it also still maintains a political concentration camp called Guantanamo Bay.
You mean wind power isn't good enough for you?
Buzz
It sounds like you have found your "special place" and I think you should main there so long as you are happy.
You make some erroneous assumptions, I spent a good portion of twenties and thirties living in Europe (mainly Germany (before and after reunification) and became quite familiar with life on both sides of the wire in what is today Germany. I saw communism and what it did to "the people" and in my view life in the U.S. at its worst is far better than life behind the iron curtain ever was. But that is jmo.
It is rich that you would point out Guantanamo Bay rather all of the prisons in China housing those so bold as to disagree with their government but do agree with you that there are far too many people in prison for minor crimes than there should be.
Depending on the media for all that forms your opinions of a place or a people is probably not the best way to see the whole picture - I know a lot of people that have lived and worked in China (government, military and busine ss people) so I have a little (but only a little) direct perspective on China
Your link is from November.
US EV sales are projected to rise by 20% this year. Hyundai's EV sales are already up 42% with May being a record sales month for the Ioniq 5. Ford's EV sales are up 65% to their 3rd best month in May. Kia's EV sales doubled last month too.
EV's represent about 1.0% of the vehicles on the road here, today. Maybe the 7.5% federal subsidy is in adequate..
Sure, it's a market still in it's infancy, but growing in demand.
The only way for me to afford one is in the used car market and if the EV's can't make it to the used car market with much of its reliability intact then it is a no go. A bad or low life battery is too expensive to replace, the electric motors if there is one phase burnt out you have to replace the entire motor unless you can rewind it yourself, the inverter is a hi-tech/low-tech item and expensive, and on an on. Our current vehicle is a 2003 Dodge we picked up for $450 because it had an engine which was bad and for $500 I rebuilt the engine and its been on the road for six years for us. An EV could never beat that price.
US EV auto sales were 7.6% in 2023 up from 5.9% in 2022 and expected to hit 9% in 2024
17% of pickup trucks were hybrid in 2022.
While the US only has 1.2 million EVs
Globally there are 14.1 million.
It took a hundred years for the gas powered auto to eliminate most horses and public transportation.
It may will be another hundred years to replace fossil fuel vehicles if we last that long ourselves.
One thing the planet has an almost infinite supply of is time.
I just hope I live long enough to see some legacy big oil multi-million dollar corporate executives get the rugs pulled out from under their feet...
Yes, let’s blame the drug cartels for America’s addictions.
Uh-Oh!
I bet some folks here will be upset that other people are making money from this!
(And perhaps even worse -- while they are not!
)
“These vehicles are still not affordable to the average American consumer because of Biden's awful economy.”
That, and the technology hasn’t progressed enough, the infrastructure isn’t in place, and nothing has been done to bolster an aging grid to handle the added load. It’s utterly absurd to push ev’s on the public at this time.
Who is "pushing" EVs on the public?
I don't feel that i've been "pushed" to buy one.
(But then again, I do often have these outlandish thoughts that I have free will... .silly me!
)
Will likely continue to drive my 2013 4x4 4 banger regular cab Tacoma forever.
Why would I trade-in the most perfect vehicle ever made?
What happened to this from post 1.3?
“Advances in technology and batteries mean nothing at this point in time as long as oil-soaked ignorant far right-wing fascists continue to be stupid.”
Still flog a seriously customized show car 500 HP 68 El Camino.
Still flog an 87 Camden supercharged RX7.
I hate selling cars that I spend big bucks on.
I need a bigger garage.
weren't those outlawed in some race categries? those things have no top end, they just fly apart when something breaks...
oops, categories...
Because the evil gub'mint is "pushing you" to buy EVs?
(Hopefully you are one of those folks that has the courage...and fortitude!.. to resist what the government is "pushing" on you!!!)
had an 82 rx7 once. I'd take it up the canyons behind boulder and scare the shit out of myself. it handled like it was on rails.
I guess some far right wing fascist flagged it...
How about that, I also had a 82 RX-7 GS. Loved running HW 1 to Big Sur off-season on a week day when it wasn’t crowded.
American made EVs are expensive. Many Chinese EVs of equal quality are much cheaper-- which is why many politicians want large tariffs on imported Chinese EVs.
(The Chinese can produce them at a much lower cost because labor is much cheaper).
I see GM going right out of business, but not before they lay off a lot of workers.
and then the dish will run away with the spoon
They may do poorly for a while. May lose lots of money. Their stock price will plummet. But I don't think they'll go out of business.. sounds like a cliche, but IMO they're "too big to fail"...
Too many people have an interest in their succeeding...
Yep, we would likely just bail them out again.
GM seems to be making a big step stopping production of the Malibu in November.
Prices for EV's must come down in comparison to ICE vehicles before the transition will really gain any true momemtum in the U.S.
Excerpt from a Forbes article.
Sales of battery-electric vehicles in the U.S. may have climbed above the 1 million unit mark this year, but there's evidence they're stalled at base camp rather than sprinting to new sales summits.
The proof is a combination of hard numbers and harder decisions by some of the major automakers. Those decisions include General Motors Co. slowing plans for new EV introductions and delaying the rollout of a new generation Chevrolet Bolt EV and EUV until 2025 and Ford Motor Co. cutting production of its F-150 Lightning electric pickup truck by 50% at the start of 2024.
“ If you can get the price down to where the price between an EV versus a hybrid or internal combustion engine is almost at parity, or at parity, then a lot of the benefits of EVs can really help to take over, ” said Kevin Roberts, director of industry insights and analytics at vehicle sales and research site CarGurus.com in an interview. “But at that kind of price premium as it stands right now, I think it's pretty difficult for consumers to make that choice.
EV Sales Pace Is Running Short Of Power Going Into 2024 (forbes.com)
So they need to produce more EVs and fewer ICE automobiles. The former will grow less expensive and the latter more. At some point we have to stop coddling the buggy whip vendors.
What pray tell do you mean by "Buggy whip vendors"?
I live in the country and we still have horse drawn buggies that we enjoy.
They should produce more hybrids right now and continue the transition to EV's as components become available "made in America" and the EV's can be offered at a price more affordable to working class America.
Most experienced Stock Market people will recognize that reference.
"Wall Street" has its own unique sub-culture. There are certain words, phrases, etc that are widely known by anyone who's been involved in the stock market for a while.
To people who haven't been, the term "Buggy Whip vendors" doesn't seem to have much meaning. But to traders/investors its makes an important point: investing in what is currently a "hot" (lucrative) product or service over time can become a losing trade.
To make this point, people "in 'the Market'" often make reference to "Buggy Whip vendors" because selling buggy whips was an extremely profitable business-- at one time.
But then "horseless carriages" (cars) were invented.
(The idea being that just because a particular stock may be really great now, often it pays to proceed with caution, as new inventions may, over time, soon render it obsolete).
I can't imagine that it costs more to produce an electric motor than it would an internal combustion motor, so perhaps the increased cost is in the batteries.
There's also another factor which has made some folks reluctant to purchase EVs-- in many cases there were long distances between charging stations on the roads. (Of course this situation will improve over time).
It seems car manufacturers may have over-estimated the popularity of EVs.
From everything I've seen, while sales of EVs have disappointed, Hybrids are much more popular than those 100% EVs.
I was always impressed by the concept of the Prius, from when it was first introduced, and its dual fuel method would alleviate the fears of most about running out of power in the wilderness.
Since it's bound to take longer to charge an EV than to fill a gas tank, I hope that unless they find a super-speed way of charging, I would think that a battery-exchange method would work better. Of course universality of batteries would make that more plausible. And rather than the move to self-service that reduced employment, it's unlikely that robotics could do the job.
Would buy an EV if it could do O>60 in under 4 seconds, handle like a race car and go for 500 miles before recharge.
The epitome of the perfect car!
a tesla left me like I had stopped on the highway west of vail a few years back. I was doing 85mph+ in my lexus sc400 at the time. when I finally got around him after he backed off the throttle, his co-pilot was giving him an earful as he watched me go by... felt kinda sorry for him...
Have driven many serious cars over the years. Never a Tesla Yet. Have heard about how fun they are to drive. Maybe someday.
Have put petal to the metal on many race cars over the years.
A friend had an SC400 rag top. That thing was fast!
He got stupid with it down on the Plaza in KC, went sideways and oops!
ETOH was likely involved.
Would you also consider price (in addition to performance?)
I have only semi money.
Fast = money
You’ve enjoyed fast cars and fast woman and rock n’ roll bands, you are our hero.
How much longer do you think you will drive a semi?
Yes-- all of these are fast-- and all are expensive!
That ain't workin', that's the way you do it
Money for nothin' and your chicks for free
The problem being I can't remember most of it.
Drugs and age can do that to you.
Probably why I don't own a Tesla.
OMG!
Now we have another problem for the Green Revolution
How is it going to be solved?
Could Wastewater From Fracking Quench Our Thirst For Lithium? (popularmechanics.com)
Simple: find a good substitute!
Read that article the other day. The negatives outweigh the positives.