4 ms·

The climate of the entire world is changing for the worse. ICE cars do not consider negative externalities. Not to mention that EVs are enormously popular! The

The climate of the entire world is changing for the worse. ICE cars do not consider negative externalities. Not to mention that EVs are enormously popular! They are only being produced now because Tesla is making them. EVs are far more reliable and cheaper to maintain than ICE cars, which is bad if you're a car manufacturer because people buy EVs less frequently than unreliable ICE cars. "ICE only exists because customers only want them" has no basis in fact.

barrysteve 3y ago
ICE cars can be made reliable and cheap to maintain. Toyota, old GM products, ect. They don't make them reliable.. I wonder why?.
- b112 3y ago
  ICE cars are incredibly reliable. I buy a new car, drive it a decade, and outside of things like brakes, tires, which wear by their nature, often have no repairs to deal with. Typically I do 25000km per year.
  - ZoomerCretin 3y ago
    You're definitely an outlier, or you only buy reliable cars.
    - b112 3y ago
      Trick #1: car models are refreshed. Never buy the first 2 or 3 years after this happens. Trick #2: many car platforms share engines. Try to buy a car with an engine that has been used for a few years. These two things alone, will ensure you aren't a beta tester NOTE: car manufacturers pay through the nose for warranty repair work. They quickly fix all things which can impact that bottom line, which is why later years in a car refresh are much more stable. Which is why: Trick #3: never buy any car without a bumper to bumper warranty, and never if 2 years. Be wary of anything less than 4. Why? Someone with a 4 year warranty, will fix problems with a model generation of a car, to save issues even 4 years out. And this means that stability is ensured for years beyond that, typically.
internet101010 3y ago
Yes it does. Until apartment buildings have charging stations EV isn't even something a lot of people would ever consider.
- tfourb 3y ago
  Modern electric cars have 300+ mile ranges and charge about 80% of that in 20 minutes or less. For city dwellers without access to a charging point at home, it would be completely feasible to spend about as much time at public charging stations as they would have at the gas station every week or so. There is a lot of "range anxiety" (as reflected by your comment) going around, but in many cases that is not justified even today, let alone a few years in the future when more charging infrastructure has been built out.
b112 3y ago
ICE only exists because customers only want them" has no basis in fact. You can only say this, if you stop your ears, and explain away anyone as wanting one. For example, no EV has the range I require. There are many in my boat. No, I'm not wrong, and you can never be right, telling me I'm wrong in what I need. Ever. As well, trying to claim EVs are more reliable is an amazing assertion, many buy ICE cars, put 250000km on them with only brake and tire changes, and drove them a decade. I know I do. In fact, it's literally impossible to determine which takes more maintenance, because the majority of EVs aren't a decade old. And the ones that are, are very early models, and not indicatively comparable to the volume of ICE cars, even now. I wonder, how.many decades of car ownership do you speak from? Do you have reliably studies going back decades for EVs, with large production runs? You're just saying what you hope is true. That's not how reality works.
- tfourb 3y ago
  If no EV has the range you require you are a tiny minority of car users. Current Tesla models can have a 300+ miles/500+ km range. I've driven a Tesla Model 3 on long road trips and the range is more or less limitless in praxis: every few hours I stop to visit the restroom, grab a bite to eat or a coffee and in the time that takes me the Tesla loads for another few hours on the road. So yes, you may have very specific needs that limit your choice of vehicles. But the needs of the vast majority of car owners can be served by current EV technology perfectly well. Apart from that: EVs have less moving parts by an order of magnitude compared to ICE cars. Of course they are more reliable, especially when you take into account that many (most?) drivers do not adhere to the very stringent service/fluid change intervals on their cars. Again, you might be different, but most people abuse their cars. My parent's VW T5 for example just crossed 350.000 miles and already had several minor engine issues in addition to a costly particle filter swap.
  - b112 3y ago
    If no EV has the range you require you are a tiny minority of car users. All supposition, much as your assertions about reliability. Reliability doesn't come from the amount of moving parts alone. You're just theorizing, which is fine in of itself, but not when you present it as fact.
linksnapzz 3y ago
"negative externalities" as described by the people who handily have a solution to sell you; or instruction to give you on how you can Be Better, according to them. There are about 500,000 electric cars registered in CA, out of about 15,000,000 registrations total. So, ~3.5%. When one factors out the owners who have an ICE vehicle in addition, the % probably goes to less than 1. That's CA; the best-case scenario. This is also after CAFE tax credits have gone to subsidize electric vehicle production, as well as subsidies and tax credits to electric vehicle purchasers. The original CARB ZEV goal was to have 10% of California's fleet electrified. This goal was set in...1990, and was expected to happen by 2000. I'm sure it was a hard choice to make. The manufacturers could ask for government support for their business until such a time that government ZEV goals could be achieved with a profitable product, or...they could build the cars that people would pay for.
- kelnos 3y ago
  I think there's a lot more nuance here than you're admitting. Any major displacement to something as foundational as cars isn't going to happen overnight. Tesla made EV's cool, and that has driven the traditional carmakers to offer more and better EVs, but we're still far from parity when it comes to what you can buy. All the traditional carmakers have a relatively small number of EV options, and they're not available at all trim levels. Like carmaker XYZ but don't want to drive a hatchback? ICE car it is. Like carmaker ABC but don't like the single trim level sedan they chose to base their EV on? ICE car it is. I would be surprised beyond belief if these manufacturers were not getting pressure from the oil industry to only do the minimum when offering EV models. Regarding negative externalities: if the price tag of a new car included the cost of all the pollution you're going to be spewing into the air while driving it, EV pricing would look even more attractive, even if we did the same for EVs and included the externality costs of battery manufacture and disposal/recycling. I was in the market for a new car a year and a half ago. I really wanted to buy an EV, but none of the available models were what I was looking for in a car. Unfortunately, I bought another ICE car. I'm very much hoping that, in 10 years, when I start thinking about another new car, the EV options will be much more varied. I expect there are a lot of people like me, who want to buy an EV, but the product they want isn't on the market (despite equivalent ICE options being available).
JAlexoid 3y ago
> people buy EVs less frequently than unreliable ICE cars Huh? The irony of you saying "no basis in fact"... Design life for a typical ICE car is typically 10 years of service... but not limited to that, as many cars live way past 10 years. The most expensive part of an EV are batteries, that have a few hundred cycles(the polymer batteries are yet to get to Tesla packs). Let's pretend that everyone gets a 310mile/500km ranges(which is one of the most expensive EVs). That means that an EV will trash the battery(a critical, 100% unconditional, limit) within 155K miles/250K Km. We're literally don't have statistics for how often an EV must be fully replaced yet. EV production boom is way less than 10 years. So maybe you should consider the saying "Pot, meet kettle"
- ZoomerCretin 3y ago
  "people buy EVs less frequently than unreliable ICE cars" means EVs are totaled by mechanical issues (Something wears/breaks from normal usage, and the repair bill is greater than the vehicle's post-repair value), and then replaced at lower rates than ICE cars. And EV batteries last 1,500+ cycles, not 300.
  - JAlexoid 3y ago
    The current production Li-ion cells have a few hundred cycles. Once we actually get to that 1500 - we can talk. But again - a claim that "people buy EVs less" isn't grounded in any fact at all. You know, because people replace cars far more often than "engine failure" or "battery pack is bust"
    - Gibbon1 3y ago
      To be rigorous battery life is a function of depth of discharge, the discharge rate, and temperature. The sort of shallow charge and discharge cycles you see with EV's aren't the same as spec 80% high rate discharges. You could grossly estimate battery life by multiplying the spec battery life in cycles times the EV's max range.
      - 3y ago

barrysteve 3y ago

ICE cars can be made reliable and cheap to maintain. Toyota, old GM products, ect. They don't make them reliable.. I wonder why?.

b112 3y ago
ICE cars are incredibly reliable. I buy a new car, drive it a decade, and outside of things like brakes, tires, which wear by their nature, often have no repairs to deal with. Typically I do 25000km per year.
- ZoomerCretin 3y ago
  You're definitely an outlier, or you only buy reliable cars.
  - b112 3y ago
    Trick #1: car models are refreshed. Never buy the first 2 or 3 years after this happens. Trick #2: many car platforms share engines. Try to buy a car with an engine that has been used for a few years. These two things alone, will ensure you aren't a beta tester NOTE: car manufacturers pay through the nose for warranty repair work. They quickly fix all things which can impact that bottom line, which is why later years in a car refresh are much more stable. Which is why: Trick #3: never buy any car without a bumper to bumper warranty, and never if 2 years. Be wary of anything less than 4. Why? Someone with a 4 year warranty, will fix problems with a model generation of a car, to save issues even 4 years out. And this means that stability is ensured for years beyond that, typically.

internet101010 3y ago

Yes it does. Until apartment buildings have charging stations EV isn't even something a lot of people would ever consider.

tfourb 3y ago
Modern electric cars have 300+ mile ranges and charge about 80% of that in 20 minutes or less. For city dwellers without access to a charging point at home, it would be completely feasible to spend about as much time at public charging stations as they would have at the gas station every week or so. There is a lot of "range anxiety" (as reflected by your comment) going around, but in many cases that is not justified even today, let alone a few years in the future when more charging infrastructure has been built out.

b112 3y ago

ICE only exists because customers only want them" has no basis in fact. You can only say this, if you stop your ears, and explain away anyone as wanting one. For example, no EV has the range I require. There are many in my boat. No, I'm not wrong, and you can never be right, telling me I'm wrong in what I need. Ever. As well, trying to claim EVs are more reliable is an amazing assertion, many buy ICE cars, put 250000km on them with only brake and tire changes, and drove them a decade. I know I do. In fact, it's literally impossible to determine which takes more maintenance, because the majority of EVs aren't a decade old. And the ones that are, are very early models, and not indicatively comparable to the volume of ICE cars, even now. I wonder, how.many decades of car ownership do you speak from? Do you have reliably studies going back decades for EVs, with large production runs? You're just saying what you hope is true. That's not how reality works.

tfourb 3y ago
If no EV has the range you require you are a tiny minority of car users. Current Tesla models can have a 300+ miles/500+ km range. I've driven a Tesla Model 3 on long road trips and the range is more or less limitless in praxis: every few hours I stop to visit the restroom, grab a bite to eat or a coffee and in the time that takes me the Tesla loads for another few hours on the road. So yes, you may have very specific needs that limit your choice of vehicles. But the needs of the vast majority of car owners can be served by current EV technology perfectly well. Apart from that: EVs have less moving parts by an order of magnitude compared to ICE cars. Of course they are more reliable, especially when you take into account that many (most?) drivers do not adhere to the very stringent service/fluid change intervals on their cars. Again, you might be different, but most people abuse their cars. My parent's VW T5 for example just crossed 350.000 miles and already had several minor engine issues in addition to a costly particle filter swap.
- b112 3y ago
  If no EV has the range you require you are a tiny minority of car users. All supposition, much as your assertions about reliability. Reliability doesn't come from the amount of moving parts alone. You're just theorizing, which is fine in of itself, but not when you present it as fact.

linksnapzz 3y ago

"negative externalities" as described by the people who handily have a solution to sell you; or instruction to give you on how you can Be Better, according to them. There are about 500,000 electric cars registered in CA, out of about 15,000,000 registrations total. So, ~3.5%. When one factors out the owners who have an ICE vehicle in addition, the % probably goes to less than 1. That's CA; the best-case scenario. This is also after CAFE tax credits have gone to subsidize electric vehicle production, as well as subsidies and tax credits to electric vehicle purchasers. The original CARB ZEV goal was to have 10% of California's fleet electrified. This goal was set in...1990, and was expected to happen by 2000. I'm sure it was a hard choice to make. The manufacturers could ask for government support for their business until such a time that government ZEV goals could be achieved with a profitable product, or...they could build the cars that people would pay for.

kelnos 3y ago
I think there's a lot more nuance here than you're admitting. Any major displacement to something as foundational as cars isn't going to happen overnight. Tesla made EV's cool, and that has driven the traditional carmakers to offer more and better EVs, but we're still far from parity when it comes to what you can buy. All the traditional carmakers have a relatively small number of EV options, and they're not available at all trim levels. Like carmaker XYZ but don't want to drive a hatchback? ICE car it is. Like carmaker ABC but don't like the single trim level sedan they chose to base their EV on? ICE car it is. I would be surprised beyond belief if these manufacturers were not getting pressure from the oil industry to only do the minimum when offering EV models. Regarding negative externalities: if the price tag of a new car included the cost of all the pollution you're going to be spewing into the air while driving it, EV pricing would look even more attractive, even if we did the same for EVs and included the externality costs of battery manufacture and disposal/recycling. I was in the market for a new car a year and a half ago. I really wanted to buy an EV, but none of the available models were what I was looking for in a car. Unfortunately, I bought another ICE car. I'm very much hoping that, in 10 years, when I start thinking about another new car, the EV options will be much more varied. I expect there are a lot of people like me, who want to buy an EV, but the product they want isn't on the market (despite equivalent ICE options being available).

JAlexoid 3y ago

> people buy EVs less frequently than unreliable ICE cars Huh? The irony of you saying "no basis in fact"... Design life for a typical ICE car is typically 10 years of service... but not limited to that, as many cars live way past 10 years. The most expensive part of an EV are batteries, that have a few hundred cycles(the polymer batteries are yet to get to Tesla packs). Let's pretend that everyone gets a 310mile/500km ranges(which is one of the most expensive EVs). That means that an EV will trash the battery(a critical, 100% unconditional, limit) within 155K miles/250K Km. We're literally don't have statistics for how often an EV must be fully replaced yet. EV production boom is way less than 10 years. So maybe you should consider the saying "Pot, meet kettle"

ZoomerCretin 3y ago
"people buy EVs less frequently than unreliable ICE cars" means EVs are totaled by mechanical issues (Something wears/breaks from normal usage, and the repair bill is greater than the vehicle's post-repair value), and then replaced at lower rates than ICE cars. And EV batteries last 1,500+ cycles, not 300.
- JAlexoid 3y ago
  The current production Li-ion cells have a few hundred cycles. Once we actually get to that 1500 - we can talk. But again - a claim that "people buy EVs less" isn't grounded in any fact at all. You know, because people replace cars far more often than "engine failure" or "battery pack is bust"
  - Gibbon1 3y ago
    To be rigorous battery life is a function of depth of discharge, the discharge rate, and temperature. The sort of shallow charge and discharge cycles you see with EV's aren't the same as spec 80% high rate discharges. You could grossly estimate battery life by multiplying the spec battery life in cycles times the EV's max range.
    - 3y ago