FleetCarma: If Law Requiring All New Cars Be Electric Were Enacted Today, It Would Take 18 Years For 50% Penetration

DEC 26 2015 BY MARK KANE 76

2016 Nissan LEAF

2016 Nissan LEAF

In a recent article, FleetCarma explored the pace of diffusion of a new solution required by a new regulation in automotive industry.

“If we passed a law today that mandated all new vehicles meet some requirement, how long would it take for 50% of the vehicles on the road to comply with the new standard?”

For example, if we mandate that all cars sold must be all-electric or plug-in hybrid with some minimum EV range, when we will see half of the cars on the streets meeting these requirements?

According to FleetCarma, taking into consideration design time of new models (manufacturers are able to develop just a few new models a year, and average vehicle turnover of 11.4 years, it would take about 18 years before 50% of the cars on the roads were all-electric or plug-in hybrid.

18 years. For half of the vehicles on the road to comply with the new law. (source: FleetCarma)

18 years. For half of the vehicles on the road to comply with the new law. (source: FleetCarma)

18 years?! And we must start today, mandating 100% new models to be electric, hoping that there will be no loophole in regulations or delays, and excluding economy/prices from the equation (everyone just buys EVs).

If we assume that the current pace of sales, we must realize that the EV journey will be our lifetime journey with many recharge points along the way. In other words, we have to be in it for the long haul.

Source: FleetCarma

Categories: General


Leave a Reply

76 Comments on "FleetCarma: If Law Requiring All New Cars Be Electric Were Enacted Today, It Would Take 18 Years For 50% Penetration"

newest oldest most voted

….then we’re wasting time aren’t we….

Yes we are wasting time..
But they got the timeline wrong as GM is doing the Bolt in 2 yrs.
Another is once you have the EV chassis in 2 sizes the rest is just designing bodies to stick on top of.
it’ll take about 12 yrs because battery material has to ramp up a lot.
Designing EV’s is far easier, cheaper not having to deal with gas motors, their extensive systems.
The real things slowing EV’s is salespeople and car companies that won’t build, sell them in the types we need.
As an EV costs less than a gas car to build other than the battery and the tax credit pays for 40kwhr of battery, EV’s should already cost much less.
No real reason the Bolt need cost over $20k as the tax credit pays for the battery other than they can get it.

jerryd said: “No real reason the Bolt need cost over $20k as the tax credit pays for the battery other than they can get it.” Let’s see how real world numbers look: $145/kWh for battery cells, times an estimated 45 kWh = $6525, times a (conservatively) estimated 1.5 to account for the cost difference between (apparently) at-cost battery cells and battery pack cost = $9787.5. That exceeds the federal maximum $7500 tax rebate, altho if you include a State incentive, some individuals might be able to reduce the price by that much. However, I question that the average car buyer would qualify for an approx. $9800 tax abatement. One of the InsideEVs editors said he personally wouldn’t qualify for the full $7500 federal tax credit. Plus, my estimate for Bolt battery pack cost doesn’t tell the whole story. It’s very likely that the only way GM got LG Chem to give them the startlingly low cost of $145/kWh, probably close to an at-cost price, was by agreeing to pay LG an attractive profit margin for making the entire EV powertrain for the Bolt. Eventually, in-house production of EVs by an auto maker should be less expensive than making gasmobiles. But… Read more »

FleetCarma …FleetEnema…Would that Work? l o l

These kinds of studies assume all kinds of things to remain constant in order to work.

Reality says that is never true.

If gasoline were $25 per gallon it would happen but quick.

Thanks, you’ve restored my faith in the ability of InsideEVs readers to spot fallacies.

Just because the norm is for large auto makers to introduce only a few new models every year, doesn’t mean that can’t or won’t change during a disruptive tech revolution. Rapid changes are why they are described as “disruptive”.

I rather imagine that a similar analysis in the year 2000 would have dismissed the possibility that within 10 years, there would be more phone calls made on cell phones than land lines in the USA.

Look how fast car manufacturers switched to planes, tanks, troop carriers and jeeps during WW2.

It can be done faster with incentives. Raise the taxes on gasoline to actually pay for road maintenance. End billions in subsidies to oil companies. More subsidies for cleaner technologies.


BIG 0IL Should Penalized .,Instead They subsidize them …TALK ABOUT POLTICIANS IN BED WITH OIL, CHEATING THE MASSES…. Been going 0n for ever..NO WONDER! ,

Big oil! Subsidies! Carbon tax!

No, just make EVs that are significantly better (and around the same cost point) than gas-powered vehicles and the uptake will be much faster than 18 years.

The customer for war fighting materials used all the money they could muster, which included issuing war bonds {debt} for the government to buy them.

Too many households in this country do not buy brand new vehicles, much less unfamiliar new vehicles as they have been priced out of the market for all but the cheapest new vehicle. Not many people daydream about buying the cheapest new car.

The car business is one that can’t change as fast as a cell phone one. So any analogy involving such thing just fails straight away. The change will take time, a lot of time, but of course governments and car manufacturers could speed up the process massively if they wanted/needed too. Not everything has to be done the traditional way, just look at the car companies who filled the trunk with batteries to comply when they didn’t have adapted platforms. It doesn’t look good, it’s not waiting for a new dedicated platform, but it works. It will take 18 years or more for most countries to get 50% electric vehicles. So we need to do more during that time, including biofuels and moving people into public transport and more efficient and smaller/lighter cars too. What some people seem to be missing though is that a few car companies has already started the transition and are moving cars to platforms that are adapted to electrification. Look at Volvo that took that decision 5 years ago and are two maybe three year away from having all cars on a platform ready for electrification. Then it’s just customer demand (and regulations/incentives) that decide… Read more »

Mikael said:

“The car business is one that can’t change as fast as a cell phone one. So any analogy involving such thing just fails straight away.”

I agree that it’s unrealistic to expect the EV revolution to be as swift as the cell phone revolution or the digital camera revolution. Both of those were dependent on advances in electronics and computer chips, and as we all know, Moore’s Law shows an incredibly fast advance in computer tech; an advance faster than what can be achieved in just about any other field, including battery tech.

So when the breakthrough does happen, it will likely still take a human generation or so to achieve, say, a drop in new gasmobile sales to 5% or less of the entire car market.

But that doesn’t mean there won’t be exponential growth. It’s just that the S-curve will be flatter than it was for the cell phone and digital camera revolutions.

And even more importantly than the Moore’s law is that electronics are cheap. Everyone could afford the cell phone and the digital camera when it started to become popular.

Cars are very capital intensive, material intensive. Both the buyer and the manufacturer are very careful since it involves a lot of money and risk. It makes both very conservative and reduces the possible shortcuts.

Compared to cell phones or other revolutionary technologies, EVs are not compelling. They don’t offer anything like a 10x improvement in value to the average consumer. They are more costly, have poorer range, take longer to refuel, require plugging in every night (another chore) and don’t have infrastructure. Even at comparable cost and with full infrastructure and comparable range, they are at best just like an ICE. They are incrementally better, but in no way revolutionary like the original ICE. In Thus, we’ll need a carbon tax or a sea change in opinion on global warming before they take off.

We are a generation too late for electric cars to have a significant impact on climate change. We need a WW II level effort, right now, to have any chance of averting disaster. People who like to sound calm and thoughtful, when the ship is sinking, are the crazy ones.


“Compared to cell phones or other revolutionary technologies, EVs are not compelling. They don’t offer anything like a 10x improvement in value to the average consumer. They are more costly, have poorer range, take longer to refuel, require plugging in every night (another chore) and don’t have infrastructure. Even at comparable cost and with full infrastructure and comparable range, they are at best just like an ICE.” I really don’t agree with that. Sure, EVs are a tough sell right now because they cost more, have range issues, and not as fast to refuel. But they do also have significant advantages. EVs: -Are far cheaper to fuel. -Don’t emit toxic pollutants. -Do not require smog checks. -Need fewer repairs due to far fewer moving parts, much less heat, and fewer liquids to leak. -Do not vibrate. -Are not so noisy. -Can be refueled at home. -Don’t have lurching transmissions. -Do not require oil changes. -Can ‘grow their own fuel’ on your rooftop with solar PV. -Can refuel themselves with a wireless charging system (or that cool snake Tesla is working on). -Have much less maintenance. -Are not dependent on imported fuel. -100% Torque at 0 RPM. -Can use carpool lanes… Read more »
Many of your points are “soft” in that they are not always true. But what I find as number one misconception about EV is that they need 8 hours to charge. DCFC is almost never mentioned other than for Tesla. Second misperception is the convenience of overnight charging. Unless one experience it in person, there’s really no way to describe it. It’s like trying to describe early car fueling to horse rider; “you see, you feed some of this liquid into the mouth of this mechanical beast…” What they should do is 1 week test drives, but that’s not likely to happen. Going through your list, -Are far cheaper to fuel. Unless one’s on lowest tier, not really whole lot cheaper; in fact, it could be more expensive than gas cars for “typical” home in my area based on comparable use report from the electric company. -Don’t emit toxic pollutants. True locally, but coal is nasty stuff. -Do not require smog checks. True. This is one of the most convenient aspect of BEV. Hybrids like my old Prius need SMOG check, so I suspect PHEV may need them, too; watch out Volt and i3Rex owners! -Need fewer repairs due to… Read more »

Three Electrics said:

“Even at comparable cost and with full infrastructure and comparable range, they are at best just like an ICE.”

Still repeating your EV-hating FUD, “Three Oil Companies”? Does Big Oil pay your salary, or are you just a stock investor?

BEVs offer the advantages of instant response and instant takeoff, whisper-quiet and silky-smooth ride, never getting dirty due to buildup of oil and dirt, never produce a noxious stench from an exhaust pipe, and offer the convenience of charging at home instead of having to drive to a special store to refuel.

In short, plug-in EVs free the automobile to reach its full potential, and turn driving from a chore into a pleasure.

As prices on EVs continue to come down, gasmobiles will increasingly be unable to compete.


There are voices out there that call the Surging Global Electric Fueled Vehicle Industry trajectory in a much more dramatic, well, disruptive way.

Most notable is Stanford Professor Tony Seba.

1st. His disruptive statement:

Link Goes To RenewEconomy Dot Com-

“Clean energy (solar and wind) is free,” Seba writes. “Clean transportation is electric and uses clean energy derived from the sun and wind.

The key to the disruption of energy lies in the exponential cost and performance improvement of technologies that convert, manage, store, and share clean energy. The clean disruption is also about software and business model innovation.”


2nd. In the following video, Prof. Seba reflects on the disruption that the ICE (Internal Combustion Engine) had on the North American Horse and Buggy Industry’s.

These two pictures as posted below are shocking in their potrayal of the transportation industry’s transformaton in just 13 years, time!

1900 New York: “Where Is The Car?”


1913 New York: “Where Is The Horse?”


Video – Prof. Tony Seba Keynote Link Goes To Ampify Festival – YouTube ‘Rebooting business paradigms’ – TONY SEBA”-


Massively interesting!


Thomas J. Thias





In 18 years hardly anyone will buy a car, because to call an autonomous ride will be so much more cheaper, convenient and safe.

^ This! Why would I want to OWN a car when one can just be available to me when I need it. At the very least, I would bet that multiple car families, like mine, will drop the 2nd and 3rd car if they were able to summon transportation on demand that goes where they want it to go.

This will be the REAL disruption in the auto industry. Electric vehicles will actually be secondary to this as fewer resources overall are needed to house, maintain, feed cars that are only used a few hours a day at most. It’s much easier to change every car over to electric when only a fraction of current production is needed to meet demand.

Furthermore, the infrastructure that will bring this about is already here. If you don’t think UBER is going to be the Amazon of future transportation, you must not have been paying attention. UBER will quickly transform into an autonomous transportation provider the second that the technology is available, at any cost. They already know that even a vehicle in the $100k+ (a la Tesla) range makes great financial sense when time-shared between a large number of users. Imagine paying $10 per day for round trip transportation to the train/work/school. Then imagine having that cost cut by allowing other riders going the same way to join along (UBER Pool). All while being driven along safely by a pilot that can react 100 times quicker than you and can sense traffic for miles in each direction. Houses no longer built with 2-3 car garages. Parking lots no longer needing to hold 200+ cars. Properly maintained and safe vehicles. This is where the breakthrough is. The EV component will just be a parallel factor in the end. Finally, if you have any doubts about this… what are we hearing from the tech giants? It’s not Apple and Google are working on a new… Read more »

AlanSqB said:

“If you don’t think UBER is going to be the Amazon of future transportation, you must not have been paying attention.”

I don’t see hundreds of millions of Americans using Uber to drive to work and back home every day. I also don’t see Uber offering the freedom and empowerment that owning your own car brings.

We see lots of people claiming that kids today aren’t that interested in owning their own car. That’s just denial. The reality is that it’s the economic downturn which has caused so many kids to give up on the dream of owning their own car. They may have convinced themselves, or others, that they “don’t really want” their own car, but that’s just making the best of a bad situation. If conditions improve, or if the decreasing cost of EVs brings the average cost of car ownership down enough, then we’ll see the younger generation embracing them as fully as their parents did.

I agree – the “Uber” paradigm just can’t support our transportation expectations and I don’t see how it could ever actually be “convenient” to call for a vehicle for every short hop someone wants to make. I may be naive, but I don’t think so.

Well, yes: if there is some sort of catastrophe that throws normal market considerations completely out the window (e.g. $25/gal gas), then sure, we could make a more rapid change.

But in that feverish doomsday scenario, people may not be very interested in buying new cars at all, because the cost of plastics has also shot through the roof and everyday items are now ridiculously expensive.

Yep. No one knows how long it could take. If oil remains cheap and governments stop attacking climate change . . . it could take a long LONG time.

If gas prices go up, there is a big battery breakthrough, governments decide to tackle climate change for real, etc. . . . it could happen fast.

And you need to realize that as it does happen, even though many gas cars will continue to exist, they will largely fall into dis-use. They’ll sit in the back of the garage waiting for the family trip.

50% electric cars could mean 80% electric miles driven.

Did they account for exponential growth potential when more people get exposed to EVS? the adoption curve may well accelerate.

Right. The assumption here contains the same fallacy as every projection made by those so-called “research groups” like Pike Research: The assumption that future growth will be at a fixed rate, and that exponential growth will never happen.

There isn’t any rational doubt that eventually, the EV revolution will experience exponential growth in sales. The only questions are how soon that will happen, and what breakthrough will trigger that growth phase.

I don’t think this law applies to electric cars the reason is that it is based off that the next model of car or phone will be far better then the one before it. When in real life they really haven’t changed the Nissan Leaf in five years in terms of range and cost. And when they finally did change the leaf they jacked the price up for a 20 mile range improvement which I really don’t feel to thrilled about in that it’s not really much of a improvement.

I don’t think the breakthrough which will start the exponential growth phase of the EV revolution has happened yet. However, it’s possible that LG Chem’s new, cheaper-per-kWh battery cells is that breakthrough. When the breakthrough does come, it will almost certainly take a couple of years for sales to go into the exponential growth phase, because it generally takes at least two years in Western countries (and Japan) to design a car, get it past the safety inspections, and get it into production.

It’s a lot easier to pinpoint the breakthrough of a tech revolution in hindsight. For example, for the cell phone revolution, it was getting microprocessors small and cheap enough to use them in cell phones.

If you don’t think that a disruptive tech revolution can happen in the auto industry, just remember how the Model T Ford transformed the industry.

If only the USA Would have Listened To Pres. Jimmy Carter In the early 1970’s ., We would have kicked this 0il addiction long Time ago ..They dismissed all his Ideas fed Us More 0il & Bull sh*% until the addiction Got us to where we are today ……

Ratcheting up the CAFE standards from 1 or 2 miles per gallon increases per year to 10 miles per gallon increases per year would help.

1 or 2 MPG per year would have been fantastic if it had been that from the beginning. But for 20+ years the rate of CAFE increase was ZERO! We could have avoided the travesty of huge commuter pickups and SUVs. Or if the “truck” mileage had been specified for commercial use only, then we would still have a much higher actual average MPG.

I’m sure that is considered and rejected. The front tip moves exponentially with early adopters, but when sales get high enough, it slows. Even hydrids looked exponential until 2008, now growth is very slow.

Part of it is vehicle choice. Is there a $15K econobox available to conviently recharge for appartment dwellers? How about a bev pick up truck. That would take maybe 5-10 years. Once it happens people don’t trade their cars fast. that is the 11.4 years. You need low priced elecrics in the used market before you get really high penetration. I would be shocked if 50% were plug-ins in the US in 2035. High gas prices could push faster change over, but not the designs.

Exponential growth will never trump immediate growth to 100%. Besides, this is cars not trucks. F150 is still the best selling ‘car’ in the US.

What would happen to F150 sales if all you could get in a car was a LEAF? Same thing that happened when station wagons had their power nurfed by emission regs. Everybody bought trucks.

There is no realistic scenario where any country or state government suddenly mandates that all future car sales must be 100% zero emission. Governments cannot dictate market forces, especially not when we’re talking about vehicles which people use to drive to work and back. Any real attempt to abruptly ban all sales of gasmobiles would result in chaos, economic collapse, and revolution.

Even in China, with its centrally controlled economy, the most they’re doing is mandating that 30% of all government purchases must be alternative-energy vehicles.

Governments can attempt to stimulate phasing out gasmobiles by raising fuel taxes, by gradually increasing the requirements for fuel efficiency in gasmobiles, by providing tax breaks for EV buyers, and by mandating that government purchases must be zero-emission vehicles. But governments cannot create technological advances by fiat, nor can they magically cause car makers to be able to make EVs which are fully competitive with gasmobiles.

Governments can help the process along, but the primary force making gasmobiles obsolete will have to be economic, not regulatory.

Yet it’s the regulatory forces that are mostly driving the EV change. CARB the EU regulations and Chinas hard policies are by far the most important factors.

Making it economically viable is not that hard either by government intervention. Just look at Norway. The same country that is basically banning non-EVs by 2025.

And yet, despite all those regulatory forces you cite, plug-in EV sales are only about 1% of global new car sales, after five years of production of mass-produced EVs.

When economic forces start driving the EV revolution — that is, when prices of EVs fall to be roughly competitive with similarly equipped gasmobiles, or less — then we’ll see much faster growth.

*sigh*… yes we will see the effects when it’s economically compelling to get EVs. But they are driven there by the regulations that are in place.
The manufacturers are preparing themselves and we will see the one massive effect of them in Europe during the next few years.
The effect is already shown in China.

This can easily be compare to non-CARB US states where we will see a lot less EVs when you let pure financial motives control. They will not get there until the regulated markets spill over cheap EVs that has been produced thanks to this forced change.

“Any real attempt to abruptly ban all sales of gasmobiles would result in chaos, economic collapse, and revolution.”

I really like the idea of that revolution caused by a gasmobile ban. That would be a nice movie theme, but I really have my doubts that people will start a revolution just to be allowed to continue gas cars.

I remember when classic light bulbs were “banned” here in germany. There were some people angry, but no revolution… In fact I doubt that people at all care what happens. You have to push people really really hard to start a revolution. A gasmobile car ban is most likely not even enough to make people go to the streets or look up from their mobile phones…

Western European countries have really good mass transit systems, which make it possible to not own a car and still commute to work and back every day.

In the USA, only a handful of large cities are equipped with such widespread mass transit systems. In most of the country, having a car is a necessity, not a luxury.

If sales of new gasmobiles were suddenly banned, most Americans wouldn’t be able to buy a new car, because so few EVs are being made. And the market for used cars would dry up too, because nobody would be selling the one they have. I wasn’t claiming that would directly cause a revolution. But it would cause economic collapse, and that would inevitably lead to revolution if the government didn’t end the ban.

The revolutionaries wouldn’t be yelling “They won’t let me buy a gas guzzler!” They would be yelling “They won’t let me get to work, and I can’t feed my family!”

Are you really sure that would cause economic collapse?

It sounds to me that would cause an electric vehicle boom with unexpected overnight plans by Tesla, GM, Ford and even Chrysler for Gigafactory 2,3, 4,…25.

People would simply hold their cars longer until they can buy an ev or an available newer second hand. Cash would flow to the ev division of car companies since wall street would see the dollars which would in itself allow better prices for batteries since they would be produced at the hundred of gigawatts levels. Even Toyota would turn its factories upside down to ramp up ev models bound for a booming US market place.

For those who think the changeover can be speeded up significantly, it’s important to realize that even if every LDV sold in the U.S. from tomorrow on were a PEV, the size of the LDV fleet is ca. 250M. With the industry on track to set an all-time U.S. LDV sales record of around 18M (+-) this year, even if sales were to average that from this point forward it would still take 250/18 = 13.9 years to provide replacements for all the existing vehicles.

I have thought about this as a story line for a fictional original book idea and even fan fictions. In the story line King Berry’s Predecessor King John the Chain Smoker ruler of Lilliput has a augment with Lilliput’s rival county about something so the rival county shuts off the oil to Lilliput. So what King John the Chain Smoker does is demand that Lilliput’s car makers build electric cars that don’t suck or else. And the idea of him giving someone $6000 dollars to buy a leaf with a 80 mile range most likely won’t work out to well. At the same time he degrees that anyone at a gas station is supporting the enemy and that all gas stations be dismantled. So pretty much every gas powered car in millions becomes nothing but scrap metal over night in Lilliput. He also charges all oil company CEO’s with treason for getting his land adduced to his rival nations oil and quickly puts them to death. And this is why you only see electric cars on the roads in my artworks. Here is the main plot line relating to electric cars http://www.deviantart.com/art/Lilliput-Goes-Green-with-electric-car-charging-453009682 and http://www.deviantart.com/art/Electric-Cars-in-Lilliput-452950473 The trouble with the above statement… Read more »

I doubt that any law could be that aggressive. It would also be a general mis-use of government power. It would be like requiring homes to turn off their Natural Gas feeds and require them to switch over to electricity.

Having lived in homes with natural gas + electricity, and then my current home that is electric only, I can tell you in good confidence that you’re economically better off abandoning NG in favor of electric only if you have solar meeting most of your electric demand. The monthly base fee for each utility adds up to about $100/year, per utility, in my area. Dropping the one utility which flows in only one direction, helps a lot. By consolidating your home (and transportation!) systems onto energy generated from the sun, you save even more money over the years.

Well, that is something that should happen. Maybe not overnight but maybe over a five year period so people have the chance to go all electric before the gas is turned off.

Like in WW II, when my parents could not buy a new car, as companies were forced to build war machinery. They couldn’t buy new tires, and gas, and meat, and butter were rationed, and the government told you you couldn’t switch jobs without their permission. You mean like that?

Yes, that’s a comparable situation. But without a war which threatens the very existence of the country, or some similar major national emergency, it’s hard to believe that people would put up with such government restrictions.

I think people will if you look at China and their one child policy they had between the 1970’s and 2015. That policy only died out due to the population aging and the government rethinking their population management policies.

I think it could be done. The no gas car law could be imposed not by man made governments but my natural factors like peak oil. Such as I was reading that the world uses one billion barrels of oil every 11 days and the United States uses one billion every 52 days. If say the Middle East has a nuclear war or several major high fields in the Middle East empty out which ever happens first will impose a no new gas car policy as governments and people try to offset half or even ten percent of this missing global oil supply.

“If say the Middle East has a nuclear war or several major high fields in the Middle East empty”

That would likely qualify for wishful thinking doesn’t it. 

It remembers me as a young student living 15 miles from Shape base, wishing a nuclear war the day before a major math exam, knowing the USSR bomb would sure wipe out the house, me and thus the math exam.

The nuclear war never came so the student learned the math.

It actually got a lot easier when I figured out it could help me determine the trust of my experimental rocket motors, I was doing in my aunt’s garden, by measuring the angle that the heavy bar, on which they were attached, was doing with the vertical while firing. Cos suddenly took on a whole new fascinating meaning!

An important point made in the study is the long fleet life cycle. Half the people in America drive someone else’s used car because they could not afford a new one. Drive through any low income area to see it in action.

It’s unfortunate, but there will still be a substantial number of gas powered vehicles on the road 50 years from now.

You have a point, but you’ve greatly exaggerated by claiming a 50 year life for cars. We don’t see a lot of 1965 or older cars driving on the roads today. The percentage of cars that old still being driven on a daily basis is surely less than 1%.


That presumes that there will be no further ice produced and sold in the ensuing time frame. In other words they will not all be 50 years old.

The scenario proposed in the article is a ban on all new gasmobile sales, period. That’s what we’re discussing.

I think in ten years you could have a lot of 30 year old cars on the roads running around. In that the cars built after 1997 seem to handle high millage and seem to last a lot longer then the cars from the 1980’s.

the autonomous car revolution will remove the burden of car ownership from those who can least afford it and those who choose to spend their resources elsewhere.

I don’t think car sharing is going to be as big as futurist keep talking about. The reason is I don’t think a lot a people don’t like the udea getting about getting in to a car where fifty other people have been in it the same day. Also at the same time people don’t like it. Another aspect that is often overlooked is if there is no human being to keep track of what people are doing in the car while it is driving around it could get really messy.

I think the time scales in this are fairly realistic, new heavy engineering cannot happen all that quickly. I wish it could, solar, wind and ev’s are growing about as fast as we can expect. The only plus to this realisation is the clock started ticking much earlier than people think. Nissan would have started work on the leaf in 2005 at the very latest, same for GM and the 2010 volt. In 2010 the VW group realised how far behind they were and launched an almighty anti-ev push to slow things down and are only now coming to the party. Tesla’s progress has been similar in terms of timeline, a bit faster but then they are more focused and, as a smaller start-up, more agile. In 2020 there is a good chance a number of eu cities could have a zero emission zone and the eu’s 95 gCO2/km fleet limit will start to bite. The new models for that event are being developed now with the early models being released as we speak. The eu announced it’s 130 gCO2/km target in the early 2000’s we hit that and we’ll hit the 2020 target. 130gCO2/km was met with conventional hybrid… Read more »

We probably just need to ask ourselves since when we started reading news about EV’s. In my case I started first with website Green car congress, in 2008 if I remember well. At that time it seemed to me obvious that quick EV cars penetration was bound to happen and would tell that to anyone listening. I am a LOT more cautious now since I had to admit that EV cars penetration is moving at a glacial space. If we have 0.5% EV’s/99.5% ICE on the road by 2020 we will be lucky.

Floods in England http://www.theguardian.com/environment/live/2015/dec/27/hundreds-evacuated-flooding-northern-england-latest-updates

Tornado in Dallas

And God knows what else will happen in the next 18 MONTHS let alone years, and you still want to tell me that it will take 18 YEARS of adding Carbon from the ground of the earth to the air we breath?

I hope that it takes much less than that.

There is saying I would imagine most are familiar with. “Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind.”

My optimistic case is getting to where they say by 2030, 3 years earlier than they predict, so within a reasonable margin of error.
In other words pretty close.

They really need something like 1% of market share before they have a huge political and energy impact, which really isn’t that far off. It’s 3 million vehicles on the road in the US.

Hey speculawyer another EV advantage is staying away from shoddy mechanics. The present population does not want to understand and learn that auto repair is big business and the auto manufactures have designed these gas guzzlers not to be home repaired. The older 60s and 70s vehicles could be home repaired and had a lot of room in the engine area. Todays vehicles have same size engine cramped into a small area. I have seen gas cars changed to EV and the electric motor is not big like a gas engine. I was thinking about making my own EV back in 2010. I was working so much that I bought a Volt in 2012. This Volt has 50,000 miles and just got it’s 2nd oil change and has only used 500 gallon of gas. We have a 2010 Focus and it has already had 13 oil changes at 70,000 miles. However these low fuel prices has slowed EV sales and that is what big oil wants. Big Oil does not want to see a bid demand for EVs. Also the auto manufacturers will see a drop in service because of EVs. As for Tesla they need to invest more into… Read more »

The EV’s being on the road and maintaining a presence are what is keeping gas prices low. Even if there are only a few EV’s on the road the fact they are there is what is keeping the oil companies worried.

Another thing I notice about gas cars is that I have had to get rid of a lot of nice cars due to flaws built into the engine like some parts that are extreamly hard to get at to fix that leak oil. These flaws inside of the gas engine make the car unfeasible and it seems like they are self destruct mechanisms to make you go out and buy another car.

I would be driving around in a 25 ti 30 year old Cadillac car if the Cadillac models didn’t have a transmission and oil pan flaw that made them to where you had to lift the whole engine out to fix it.

“Big Oil does not want to see a bid demand for EVs.”

Big Oil doesn’t care. We are using more and more NG and a little less gasoline. So what? It’s all oil.

Ummm, I get what they are trying to say, that even under the best case circumstances it would take time to “change out the fleet”, or significantly alter the mix of cars on the street.

However, they assumed that a whole new car would have to be designed from scratch. The actual time they state for a “fleet change” is 11.4 years, see the graph above.

I think there is some kind of contest going on to get in the last entries for most stupid article of the year. We have seen some real winners. Isn’t this kind of thing more normal for April 1st?

The ‘100% of cars in showrooms are electric by 2025’ is happening already. No mandates necessary.

A factor worthy of consideration but not mentioned in the article is that emissions are not related to the number of cars on the road, but how many miles they drive. Older cars tend to be used less, so the environmental burden of these old cars is not proportional to their numbers.

Another factor is an early demise of old ICE cars. It will reach an astonishing rate as more and more petrol stations will have to close, and repairs/maintenance becomes ridiculously expensive. Just as EV’s get cheaper as they become more mainstream, the opposite will happen to ICE cars as they exit the mainstream.

This is why I favor renewable bio synthetic fuels. You get the benefits right from the start, no waiting for the whole world to change.

Instead of passing a law requiring all new cars to be electric, pass a law about gas sales and consumption. If you’re only allowed to buy 5 gallons of gas a week for your non-business vehicle, the inconvenience will nudge many to buy a new or used plug-in.


To the average person, what is going to drive adoption for the next generation of cars isn’t EV technology but rather self-driving/accident avoidance technology.

What we should want to do from a policy perspective is tie vehicle electrification to self-driving cars. That way, to be allow to be fully self-driving it needs to be electric for safety reasons (cant have a car sitting with no occupants with its gas engine operating).

“what is going to drive adoption for the next generation of cars isn’t EV technology”

I agree with this statement but not the conclusion that driver-assist tech is the ‘next big thing’.

Check with the 16-year-olds. They want connectivity not self-driving cars. Integration so that their car can find and talk to their friend’s car is more important than self-preservation. Young people are invincible. Just ask them.