Are we losing the EV Revolution?

[FirstF150InCasco]

In addition to all the points made by others, another key point is something that the CEO of Ford said after he took a Route 66 road trip in a Ligntning this summer. "The problem is not Range Anxiety. Rather, the problem is Charging Anxiety." People need to know that they can find WORKING high speed chargers when they are away from home. The opening up of the Tesla network early in 2024 will help a lot. P.S. I've been attempting to find working Electrify America chargers in the Boston area so I can use up my 500 balance. I've yet to find one that is truly available AND working when I get there!

Sponsored

 

[benjmsher10]

Probably would have been better to roll out a compact, lighter weight, EV ford pickup before going whole hog on the F150, which is such a heavy vehicle and therefore is a gross energy hog (but i love it none the same). It will be a slow and gradual ramp up but will always be limited by the home charging problem for renters, who make up such a large percentage of the population (36%). I doubt many landlords will be installing charging capacity in the homes they rent out. And apartment building owners might add a few stations but not nearly enough to supply even a fraction of their tenants. So ICE is here to stay for a very long time, sad to say. Perhaps the hydrogen approach will be better suited to tenants. If gas prices become truly exorbitant, perhaps driverless EV uber will become an affordable alternative for tenants as opposed to ICE ownership.

 

[Danface]

Adoption of EV's and BEV's will be up and down just like the rest of existence is up and down. The migration to electric vehicles either with or without an ICE component will happen slowly which is needed since the grid couldn't suport a rapid shift to all electric vehicles. None of us were around when getting gas for your car wasn't easy but look at things now.

 

[Bills R Electric]

With the lack of demand cited in the scaling back of Electric Vehicle (EV) production plans, it’s easy to postulate that the EV Revolution is being lost. The lack of demand I would postulate is the result of skyrocketing inflation and interest rates, not a lack of interest in EVs. These factors are impacting all vehicle demand, not just EVs.

We must remember that the EV Revolution was started by and is maintained by the State and Federal Governments. The governments have seen success in stoking the fires of the EV Revolution and they are doubling down on their efforts. I also postulate that the EV Revolution is about to get red hot.

Nine CARB states have adopted Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV) mandates and all the states in the country have to at least have to follow the CAFÉ mandates. The states that have adopted ZEV mandates cover over 30% of the population of the country and require a prohibition of the sale of new Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) vehicles by 2035. The question begs, “How will this prohibition work?”

The ZEV regulation varies between states, but we can take California as an example. California has an escalating percentage quota that goes to 100% in 2035. Any manufacturer that goes over the quota of ICE vehicles has to pay $20,000 for EVERY vehicle over the quota for that year.

So basically, the governments are going to be imposing penalties for the sale of ICE vehicles and those penalties are going to increase every year until manufacturers ICE vehicles will no longer be price competitive with EVs. This game plan has been in play for years so why is the EV Revolution about to get red hot? Aside from the fact that the state only recently adopted ZEV mandates, the targets are going to be escalating rapid over the next few years.

Market share for EVs in California is about 20% right and about 7% for the rest of the country. The EV quota is going up to over 40% in California in 2026 and in the other nine ZEV states in 2027. So California is going to have to double its’ EV sales and the other ZEV states are going to have quadruple or quintuple their EV sales within the next couple of years.

The impact on the average auto consumer is going to be tremendous. Whether the consumers like it or not, their ICE vehicle choices are going to be increasingly limited and expensive. A lot of people are going to be very, very upset and I expect a very serious anti-EV counterattack in this EV Revolution.

California is a unicorn and shouldn't be used as a benchmark for most of the other 49 states.

Whether it is Kansas, West Virginia, Delaware or Vermont, the EV adoption curve will be much different in those states.

IMO the two biggest impediments, and will be for at least 5 more years, is PRICE of EVs and the # of public chargers.

Public perception of charging is holding back a large chunk of the population from even considering EVs until they see Public Chargers all over the place.

It will happen, but the NON-early adoptees (at least in the US) is going to take quite some time.

 

[metroshot]

Probably would have been better to roll out a compact, lighter weight, EV ford pickup before going whole hog on the F150, which is such a heavy vehicle and therefore is a gross energy hog (but i love it none the same). It will be a slow and gradual ramp up but will always be limited by the home charging problem for renters, who make up such a large percentage of the population (36%). I doubt many landlords will be installing charging capacity in the homes they rent out. And apartment building owners might add a few stations but not nearly enough to supply even a fraction of their tenants. So ICE is here to stay for a very long time, sad to say. Perhaps the hydrogen approach will be better suited to tenants. If gas prices become truly exorbitant, perhaps driverless EV uber will become an affordable alternative for tenants as opposed to ICE ownership.

Yes, this.
My cousin just got a great deal on the Mirai hydrogen vehicle recently and it's working out for her as she lives near 2 hydrogen stations as her HOA will not allow for L2 charger installs.

When I got the '22 Lightning when it first rolled off, I was elated but reality set in after a year of driving it as a commuter vehicle in urban Los Angeles.

For the higher workload driving such a large vehicle, I would have preferred a Ranger or Maverick sized EV truck for my urban commuting.

So far, my new '23 Mach E is just that much better suited.

 

[Danface]

Remembered this just now:

 

[hturnerfamily]

I bought this truck after owning several Nissan LEAF original generation 'up to 70 miles range' vehicles, which use CHadeMO, can only charge up to 50kw, but otherwise do EXACTLY what they were designed to do: move you from one place to another.

I learned what REAL 'range anxiety', or better put 'charging anxiety' really is. If you don't come from this type of experience, chances are, you'll have a 'spoiled' idea of the change of lifestyle that these EVs require. If we had started and stayed with electric vehicles from the beginning, NO ONE would be espousing to driving any vehicle that requies a flammable liquid, and 'oil', and NOISE, and all that Maintenance that is required. They certainly wouldn't be willing to pay $3-$5 per gallon of 'gas', either...

I bought this truck because I wanted this truck. There is no political reason. There is no 'saving the world' reason. There is no 'gas is dead' reason. It's just what I like. Period. I really don't care AT ALL if NO ONE else ever buys one. It has no bearing on me.

I'm always amazed, though, how FIRM non-ev owners can be on the subject. They know better than we do, although they don't own one. They know more information about them, even though they have no experience with them. They believe EVERY negative article that passes thru the internet, even though they have NO confirmation of any 'true' data.

I have been told that 'Ford recalled all those trucks, why are you still driving yours??'
I have been told that 'You might be happy now, but just wait until you have to buy a new Battery for that 'thang'...'
etc...

They think that just because WE own one, we MUST be trying to change the world. . . Really??

 

[Maxx]

These guys are saying big 3 have problem making money off of EVs so they say “increase” in demand is slowing down. Even by their account there is still increase in demand.



Have you met anyone that sat in a lightning or a Rivian and didn’t want one or at least their opinion of how evil they are didn’t shift a bit? There are enough EVs on the road today that just by exposure will change public opinion about owning one. Charging network will only get better and new manufacturing process, design choices and battery tech will make affordable EVs possible. This train is already close to cruising speed and will not stop. Cars will run on electric motors. Source of energy could be different; solid state battery or hydrogen.

p.s. I don’t see any problem with saving the planet or government doing it’s job by governing. Like many of you I bought the truck mostly for selfish reasons but if I was a real early adopter like Honda insight owners and did it to save the planet, I wouldn’t apologize for it.

 

[Quibbs]

The EV push is here to stay.

I have owned over 60 cars in my life. Big car nut.

But I now own all EV.
Why?

First, they fit my lifestyle. I do not tow long distances or drive far most of the year.

And, versus a comparable ICE version they:

Handle great, are faster, smoother, loads of instant torque, require less maintenance.

And unlike ICE vehicles, they give one an alternative method to "fuel" their car. Where I do not require a 3rd party to fuel me up all the time. I can install solar and charge (fuel) from home. I can go off grid to charge. That is not really an option for ICE cars.

Also, whereas ICE vehicles are very mature in their development cycle, EVs have much more room to improve.

Finally, the last reason is climate. I own 100 acres, full of mature trees, etc. I have seen first hand what happens when things that have grown under certain average conditions for long periods are put into more extreme ones. We expect to lose all our mature white oaks in less than a decade and other native species as conditions worsen.

I do believe in the science and trying to do what I can. If all the science were to be magically proven to be wrong one day, I still would have no regrets for I rather err on the side of caution.

Personally I feel all of the above reasons are pragmatic as opposed to "extreme/radical/leftist".

 

[Texas Dan]

California is a unicorn and shouldn't be used as a benchmark for most of the other 49 states.

Whether it is Kansas, West Virginia, Delaware or Vermont, the EV adoption curve will be much different in those states.

California is not a unicorn, I used California as an example to make it easier to follow the math. There are seventeen CARB states and nine of those have adopted ZEV mandates. The nine ZEV states cover over 30% of the population and, if all seventeen CARB states adopt ZEV mandates, over 50% of the population will be under ZEV mandates.

Even non-CARB states will have to follow CAFE targets. CAFE penalties are a lot harder to understand than CARB ZEV penalties but they are still a very serious effort to drive the manufacturers towards ZEVs. There are a lot of similarities between the CARB and the CAFE regulations and I would not expect that much difference in EV adoption from one state to the next.

I might point out that the CAFE targets are only projected to 2032. It’s very possible that CAFE could adopt a ZEV mandate during a review that would mirror the CARB ZEV mandate. I might also point out that the ZEV mandates don’t prohibit ICE vehicle production, the ZEV mandate penalties just make it very expensive to do so..

 

[Bills R Electric]

California is not a unicorn, I used California as an example to make it easier to follow the math. There are seventeen CARB states and nine of those have adopted ZEV mandates. The nine ZEV states cover over 30% of the population and, if all seventeen CARB states adopt ZEV mandates, over 50% of the population will be under ZEV mandates.

Even non-CARB states will have to follow CAFE targets. CAFE penalties are a lot harder to understand than CARB ZEV penalties but they are still a very serious effort to drive the manufacturers towards ZEVs. There are a lot of similarities between the CARB and the CAFE regulations and I would not expect that much difference in EV adoption from one state to the next.

Fly into California, as many of us have, and you can rent a Tesla (or EV) at the airport. When you drive up and down North and South there are Tesla charging locations everywhere. It is pretty amazing actually.

Pop into Harrisburg, Pennslyvania and try to find a DCFC. (I have)
Or pop in Niagara Falls, NY and try to find a DCFC (I have)

California, is probably 5+ years ahead of many many other states because of the availability of DCFCs. I hope and wish other states would catch up sooner rather than later, but it won't be next year, or the year after.

I hope by 2027/2028 the states not named California have made a lot of progress.

 

[FirstF150InCasco]

I bought this truck after owning several Nissan LEAF original generation 'up to 70 miles range' vehicles, which use CHadeMO, can only charge up to 50kw, but otherwise do EXACTLY what they were designed to do: move you from one place to another.

I learned what REAL 'range anxiety', or better put 'charging anxiety' really is. If you don't come from this type of experience, chances are, you'll have a 'spoiled' idea of the change of lifestyle that these EVs require. If we had started and stayed with electric vehicles from the beginning, NO ONE would be espousing to driving any vehicle that requies a flammable liquid, and 'oil', and NOISE, and all that Maintenance that is required. They certainly wouldn't be willing to pay $3-$5 per gallon of 'gas', either...

I bought this truck because I wanted this truck. There is no political reason. There is no 'saving the world' reason. There is no 'gas is dead' reason. It's just what I like. Period. I really don't care AT ALL if NO ONE else ever buys one. It has no bearing on me.

I'm always amazed, though, how FIRM non-ev owners can be on the subject. They know better than we do, although they don't own one. They know more information about them, even though they have no experience with them. They believe EVERY negative article that passes thru the internet, even though they have NO confirmation of any 'true' data.

I have been told that 'Ford recalled all those trucks, why are you still driving yours??'
I have been told that 'You might be happy now, but just wait until you have to buy a new Battery for that 'thang'...'
etc...

They think that just because WE own one, we MUST be trying to change the world. . . Really??

I agreee 100% with this statement: I bought this truck because I wanted this truck. There is no political reason. There is no 'saving the world' reason. There is no 'gas is dead' reason. It's just what I like. Period. I really don't care AT ALL if NO ONE else ever buys one. It has no bearing on me." That's my view also.

 

[Texas Dan]

It’s inspiring to read the posts stating that people bought their Lightnings just because they like the truck but they are just kidding themselves if they think they weren’t victims of social engineering. Ford only offered the Lightning under threat of serious government penalties and Ford tried to make the Lightning as enticing as candy so people would buy it. But in the not-so-distant future people who do not want to consider an EV under any circumstance will have little or no choice.



Am I all right with people losing the right to choose? I think of the old adage, “One person’s rights end where another person’s rights begin”. In my mind my right to cleaner air and a more sustainable future for my kids and grandkids trumps another person’s right to choose between an EV and an ICE vehicle.

 

[metroshot]

It’s inspiring to read the posts stating that people bought their Lightnings just because they like the truck but they are just kidding themselves if they think they weren’t a victim of social engineering. Ford only offered the Lightning under threat of serious government penalties and Ford tried to make the Lightning as enticing as candy so people would buy it. But in the not-so-distant future people who do not want to consider an EV under any circumstance will have little or no choice.



Am I all right with people losing the right to choose? I think of the old adage, “One person’s rights end where another person’s rights begin”. In my mind my right to cleaner air and a more sustainable future for my kids and grandkids trumps another person’s right to choose between an EV and an ICE vehicle.

Well said and agree.

I have always been a first adopter of new tech so when the '22 Lightning showed up over a year earlier than my Mach E order, I was elated to try it out.

Loved the Lightning - no issues - no complaints - perfectly reliable first year EV model.

Then reality set in with the commute drive being so difficult in urban LA traffic.

Year later, traded her in for a much better suited commuter EV: Mach E which took 14 months after the Lightning to arrive...

Now, California wants all new vehicles sales starting in 2035 to be EV only - that won't work unless the charging infrastructure grows by leaps and bounds.

Currently with 20-25% EV adoption rate in CA, and a small percentage of that charging publicly - I am the first to complain that there are not enough public chargers.

Imagine what would happen if 100% of new cars sold in 2035 are EV - can you say charging "clusterF***" ?

 

[carrillj]

Simply put, this first generation of the Lightning is a failure. It was an early Ford cash grab to take advantage of all the early adopters. Give it another 8 years or so for the “revolution” to catch on, if it ever does.

Sponsored