Increasing Popularity Of Gas Guzzlers Negates Tesla’s CO2 Reduction

JAN 4 2019 BY EVANNEX 178

TRUCKS AND SUVS SPEWETH WHAT TESLA TAKETH AWAY (AND THEN SOME)

Electric vehicles are on a roll – as the Tesla Model 3 continues to set new sales records, legacy brands are announcing more new models, and one automaker actually envisions an eventual end to the production of internal combustion engines. Unfortunately, the main raison d’etre of EVs – reducing fossil fuel consumption – is an elusive goal that seems to be as far out of reach as ever.

*This article comes to us courtesy of EVANNEX (which also makes aftermarket Tesla accessories). Authored by Charles. The opinions expressed in these articles are not necessarily our own at InsideEVs.

Above: Increased tailpipe emissions from the increased popularity of trucks and SUVs isn’t helping to clean up our air (Image: The Bulletin)

In the US, the federal government is working with the legacy automakers to dismantle previously agreed-upon fuel economy standards, as the oil industry invests large sums to bring lawmakers and the public around to the view that saving fuel is no longer a good idea.

However, it’s not politicians or petro-plutocrats who bear most of the blame for our ever-increasing oil consumption. As the witty Walt Kelly put it, we have met the enemy, and he is us. The main reason the gas pumps are cranking out as much of the stinky liquid as ever is auto buyers’ love affair with trucks and SUVs.

As David Booth writes in Driving, a media outlet focused on the Canadian auto market, “the increasing popularity of large trucks has more than wiped out any CO2 reduction credited to EVs.” In Canada, high-end pickups are making inroads in the luxury segment, believe it or not. Booth points out that, since Tesla introduced Model S in 2012, the company has sold a total of around 21,000 vehicles (including Model 3) in Canada. During that same time frame, Ford alone has sold an average of 135,000 F-150 pickups every year, and that represents a steady and dramatic increase in sales since 2012. The additional emissions from increasing truck sales has wiped out any greenhouse gas reduction from the EVs Tesla has sold many times over, Booth writes.

Above: The launch of Tesla’s pickup truck can’t come fast enough (Image: InsideEVs)

And that’s just Canada. In California, where plug-in vehicles now represent 10 percent of all new-car sales, the F-150 still outsold all plug-ins combined, and overall, full-size pickups outsold EVs three-to-one.

Outside the US, pickups are far less popular, but the love for SUVs seems to be universal. Chinese buyers have been flocking to SUVs for some time now, preferably large ones from luxury European brands. In Europe, once the land of high gas prices and small cars, gas-guzzlers are rapidly taking over. To take one example, in Switzerland, the market share of 4x4s grew from 25% in 2008 to over 48% in 2018. Switzerland is one of several countries in which the craving for crossovers has derailed efforts to meet previously agreed-upon emissions reduction goals – the average CO2emissions of new cars increased between 2016 and 2017, and no reversal of this trend is in sight.

Around the world, the amount of gasoline burned has been on the rise for years. As a recent article and chart in Forbes demonstrates, demand for gas has grown steadily since 2012, when US consumers burned some 8.7 million barrels per day, to set a new record of 9.3 million barrels per day in 2016. In 2017, demand growth was flat (it actually declined by a statistically insignificant 0.0006 percent compared to 2016, according to OilPrice.com). However, the US Energy Information Administration says demand resumed its rise in 2018, and predicts that consumption will increase to 9.4 million barrels per day in 2019.

Above: The electric vehicle threat to gasoline might currently be overstated – our gasoline demand has never been higher (Source: Forbes via EIA)

So, you’re right to feel virtuous as you charge up your Model 3 with energy generated by your Solar Roof. However, be aware that the gas you and your fellow Teslanauts are saving represents a tiny drop in a very large bucket.

===

Written by: Charles Morris

*Editor’s Note: EVANNEX, which also sells aftermarket gear for Teslas, has kindly allowed us to share some of its content with our readers, free of charge. Our thanks go out to EVANNEX. Check out the site here.

Categories: General, Tesla

Tags: ,

Leave a Reply

178 Comments on "Increasing Popularity Of Gas Guzzlers Negates Tesla’s CO2 Reduction"

newest oldest most voted

That is ok. trump will save us when he puts the economy into a ressession. Demand for trucks will go down and so will emissions.

Record levels of employment and real wage growth for the first time in a long time hardly a recession make. Trump is correcting the failures of Obama right now.

Tell that to the folks at the 4 GM plants that are about to be shut down. I am not convinced it is Trump’s policies. If you can thread the needle between your claim that it is his doing by showing me what he specifically did, I’d appreciate it.

It way too soon to be Trump’s actions helping the economy, rather we are the effects of Obama’s actions paying off.

But more important, we need the BEV trucks as soon as possible.

Trade tarrifs, the corporate tax cut, the stupid wall, the shutdown, no we are EXACTLY seeing Trump’s actions. Please tell me you do not have any stock or an invested 401k since October 2018.

Who do you think queued up that growth? Trump? Ha! The market doesn’t move that fast, it takes at least a few years for policy changes to be felt. The effects of his trade wars and top down policy are just starting to be felt. You better buckle up.

The market front runs everything. If you pass favorable tax legislation the market will factor that in way before the real money goes to the companies.

Tariffs War that Trump started on his own rather than working with TPP and European Allies and the WTO.
Trump said trade wars are easy to win in May 2018.

Thanks to the tariff man, Americans now have to pay more for major appliance…

Buy American

I want it to work for more than a week though…

We have bought electrolux fridge and had more issues with it. It was one of the worst piss poor designs that I have seen. When I tore it apart to look at it, I was shocked at how bad Europe had made this. PURE GARBAGE. I thought it was made in China.

I know others who have had their samsung fridge down for 3 months waiting for parts.
And LG fridges breaks regularly.
Likewise, LG dropped their software support for our $400 Blu-ray after 3 years, so that our expensive player became DVD only.

Now, we have kitchenaid, whirlpool and Morton. The kitchenaid dishwasher has broken and I fixed it quickly (plenty of cheap parts). Likewise, our whirlpool washer/dryer have broken several times and I fix those for cheap (dryer required heating element for 120; clothes washer required new inlet solenoids). The solenoid value on our honeywell humidifier locked up, so replaced it after 12 years for only $20.

I will stick with American made.

The petulant baby in the WH is doing what he can to remove any environmental protection laws that have helped spur the growth of EVs. The fossil fuel industry totally supports the fool on the hill. I hope for a day when a well spoken, thoughtful person will once again inhabit the WH and lead the world instead of drag it down with 20th century thinking.

Don’t worry, soon enough, changing US demographics will make it so that conservatives will never win another presidential election again, and will be a permanent minority in the House and Senate. Donald Trump is the last Republican President the US will ever have.

Surely the 80 million gun owning conservatives will be perfectly happy with this, and definitely won’t start a civil war.

“Donald Trump is the last Republican President the US will ever have.”

Quite possibly. Time for real conservatives to form their own political party, something close to what the GOP was before Newt Gingrich started the era of treating Democrats as “the enemy”, and labeling the normal political process, involving political compromise where both sides get most of what they want, as “losing”.

The ignorant angry baby (and Russian puppet) currently occupying the White House is just the natural end of that cycle of debasement and corruption of our political system.

Real conservatives believe in investing in the future, they don’t suck up to foreign dictators, they value America’s long-time allies, they are in favor of free trade, and they believe in controls on government spending. They also don’t treat someone as an “enemy” merely for having a difference of opinion. The Orange One and his gang of crooks and mobsters are not true conservatives; they are fake ones.

“The person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally, not a 20 percent traitor.” — Ronald Reagan

We have the highest standard of living in the world. If you truly want “free trade” then our standard of living must go down – lower pay to be competitive with other countries and/or fewer jobs – or other countries and their standard of living must go up. There’s no free lunch.

Environmentally speaking, a lower standard of living in the Us would do a world of good. Practically speaking, nobody would tolerate the sacrifice required by true free trade.

Oh that’s just propaganda – Not many Kuwait Golden Toilets in my town. The typical Swiss doesn’t do too badly either.

It’s not propaganda, it’s simple economics. I’m pretty sure we have far less manufacturing jobs than we used to 20 years ago, because it’s cheaper to make elsewhere. All our tech innovations and advantages are stolen by the Chinese on a regular basis too – the crux of the cirrrnt trade war – so our leg up there is continuously undermined too.

Time will tell, as there is little use for me to comment, other than I doubt in the years to come whether “Richest Country in the World” will be the first thing that comes to mind when thinking of the USA. We WERE on the way to becoming ultimately a 3rd world country – but people in general have rejected those Master Plans.

The advantage that that USA has had, is that we print dollars – and receive real products in return from other countries, due to having the world’s reserve currency for decades. That is in the terminal phase. It will be as big an adjustment as it was for Britain at the end of World War II when they lost theirs. Among other things, they lost their world-wide empire, and then at times in years hence didn’t even have 24 hour electricity in their homes and businesses.

Fortunately, there is still a wee bit of lip service given to the Constitution – not by most in the Gov’t, but by the people in general.

ROFL. If you really believe that we have the highest standard of living any more, well, you obviously have not been around the globe, nor do you read. We DID have the highest standard. From 1940 until 1980. 40 years. Then reagan came along and between him, W, and now trump, have ran us into the ground. Go check google. MANY other nations have higher standards of living. Heck, Minimum wage in Canada? $13.85. And their economy is growing faster than America. Why is their minimum wage higher? Because they pay a LIVEABLE wage and then do not have to subsidize ppl with welfare. We are become a 3rd world nation because of the GOP. We need to increase minimum wage to LIVABLE wages like we had in the 70s, and then cut way back on welfare. At the same time, we need to address illegals here. As in block businesses from hiring them. Not building a worthless wall. esp when less than 40% of the ppl come over the southern border. As to killing our environment, you will find that Canada and Germany with higher pay still have tighter env. laws than does America. Oddly, we were the LEADERS… Read more »

Minimum wage is not a reflection of standard of living. You need to include cost of living, value of the currency, etc. if your goal post is money.

Example: the article below states that Canadians make slightly more than US citizens, but their taxes, housing, and food costs, among others, are higher enough that they more than offset the additional wage.

Link: https://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/1012/u.s.-or-canada-which-country-is-best-to-call-home.aspx

Uh, Trump is NOT what I call Republican. THink Lincoln, Teddy, and IKE. Trump/admin have more in common with Hitler and Putin than they do with REAL republicans.
Sadly, the Republicans have been chased out of the GOP. It is now a far right wing party that has far more in common with the NAZIs than they ever did with the Republican party.

Say that to the feds, stock market and consumer confidence which have been the lowest since he took office

The first year is always from the hand of the predecessor.

I agree $300 billion budget deficit for the first two months of 2019 fiscal year. In what is suppose to have been a budget neutral TAX Plan.
Trillion dollar deficit for 2019 in a good economy. What does a recession look like.

Ya the fundamentals of the US economy are terrible…haha are you living in a cave?

Oh C’mon! Our gov’t only spends $1,000,000,000,000.00 more per year than they take in – in revenue. What could ever go wrong with that?

That doesn’t mean we should just give up trying. EV’s curbed demand and while it didn’t cause a reduction today, someday it will. All because people made an effort to do the right thing. Plus, pressing the go peddle on a Tesla is extremely fun.

Plus, people would still do the right thing if Trump didn’t facilitate Ford/GM/FCAs flight from CAFE’s 2022-2025 light truck true up.

Evannex is wrong. It isn’t “us”, when the only car Ford will sell is a Mustang. It’s AAM, Trump, the Plutocrats, and #pravduh making the rest of us light-truck price-takers (if we want to be loyal to non-Tesla American brands).

Cars are still almost a third of the market. Trump helps “un-free” it, like he is trying to jam coal.

But there’s a reason they aren’t making cars any more. They aren’t selling. North Americans don’t want small cars (Fiestas and Focus – both top selling cars in Europe) and sedan sales are falling around the world (although North America hasn’t seen quite the same collapse as Europe, in part because they are the small hatchback equivalent of North America) as more practical sedan/hatchback based CUV’s have become available, with efficiencies not dissimilar to the cars they are replacing.

It’s the North American publics want of large vehicles that is the problem, not necessarily the car manufacturers. The smallest car Tesla makes is the Model 3, which is bigger than most cars on the road in Europe and much of the rest of the world… Ironically Tesla are “part” of the problem, if you assume it’s the manufacturers at fault.

Or maybe they’re just re-labeling their cars as “SUVs” and “CUVs” ‘cuz they sell better that way to us Americans, because of the insane “arms race” we’ve gotten into, where even otherwise sensible people say that they don’t want a small car because it will “lose” in case of accident against a larger one.

Where will it all end? With everyone literally driving tanks and armored cars?

I’d love to see the “Bigger is better” attitude replaced with “Smaller is smarter”.

PP, Are any CUV oe SUV cars, and nor light trucks? One could make a CUV lower to the ground, falling back into the “car” category, but taking a pass on delivering 5mpgs more is enabled by that needless ground clearance.

Light (<6500lb) trucks are allowed the tech gap we are about to witness, as they negate the CO2 of CO's like Tesla. It's welfare, in my view.

exactly, every long range EV sold today should still be on the road 11-14 years from now, the drive trains should last longer, and even with battery replacements, each ev sold can displace 50-150 tons of CO2. I’m still expecting the oil glut to hit within 5 years. It depends on how fast VW gets its act together, and if they will match tesla’s EV volume from 2020 on.

A 2% tax on gas guzzlers would have a tremendous impact in reducing gas consumption without having any impact on the economy.

Do you know why there’s revolt level demonstrations in France?

Ummmm…. because those in control of the French government imposed higher taxes on gasoline and other necessities after slashing taxes on the rich?

It’s about time the middle class and the poor quit being doormats for the way the 1% are keeping the overwhelming majority of new wealth for themselves. It’s way past time.

The class warfare waged over the last 30+ years is quite real. It’s time to quit giving in to the 1% always winning.

https://www.ft.com/content/3d907582-b893-11e7-9bfb-4a9c83ffa852

Agree Bill Gates, Buffett and others in the 1% have said for a long time that the 1% should paid more in taxes. However the GOP Congressman that get 400 million in campaign contributions from the Koch Brothers are against it. I guess when you own the Congressman you get the laws you paid for. When the oil industry gets a 4 billion a year subsidy, spending 400 million to keep the subsidy is a great investment for the oil industry. It’s terrible for taxpayers and the environment.

In Spain right now $50 of fuel = 10 US gallons of gasoline.

Interesting animation, so moral of the story is if you want something bigger than a hatch… buy an SUV (or more precisely a CUV) over a Sedan.

Buy a CRV or a Rogue over an Accord or Camry as they have more space, and go further on $50…

Maybe taxing vehicles by mileage and weight would help curb some of this – as well as help repair the roads as vehicle weight has an exponential affect on road damage.

Works quite well in many civilized nations.

States need to tax fuel at .50 cents a gallon and not impose the sales tax on new EV purchases. Also eliminate the subsidies that oil companies receive.

That’s a good way to get the current politicians thrown out in favor of anti-EV, pro-oil replacements.

When EVs are 2% of the market, passing laws to severely punish the other 98% is just going to result in rage redirected at EVs. You can’t take that kind of action until EVs are a MUCH larger percentage of the market.

In Europe taxes on fuel are 100% so .50 cents more is very low and most of the money goes to infrastructure and a portion goes to increasing the number of EV’s

I don’t even need to Google the subject to know that no European country ever imposed the equivalent of a 50¢ per gallon tax all at once. If they had, we’d have seen the sort of rioting going on in France right now, only much worse.

The way to get to that level of taxation on gasoline is gradually and incrementally, over many years.

You do agree that the European countries pay 100% tax on fuel though right. If not just Google it.

No, this is a very simple problem to solve: apply a sin tax what you don’t want to be used (in this case gas/diesel).
start low and make the tax increase each year, so that people don’t revolt.
Start with 5% in 2020 and increase by 5% each year.
it might not sound like much (hence reduced resistance to introducing it) but anyone planning a new purchase will see how this will hurt them down the road.
Then use the tax revenue to fund EV rebates – the pool will increase each year (as will the sales of EVs). There will be an inflection point in about 5 years where the increased cost of gas and decreased cost of EVs will result in a very quick end to the ICE.

What you are describing is more or less already happening in France and Belgium since 2008 and average carbon emissions per car has significantly decreased since then.

Exactly. High taxes on gasoline/petrol also makes smaller, more efficient cars more popular in Europe. We could use a lot of that in the USA, too!

But it can’t be done all at once; certainly not by slapping a 50¢ tax per gallon on gasoline all at once. Anyone who advocates that is ignoring reality pretty hard. People will need time to adjust, and to make future plans to get a smaller, more efficient car.

Well we want to spend a trillion dollars over 10 years on infrastructure. The GOP would be okay with borrowing more money to pay for it. Even though after the first two months of fiscal year 2019 we have a budget deficit of 300 billion. We’ll probably be close to a trillion dollar deficit for fiscal year 2019.
GDP for 2018 will be 2.9% so the Tax Plan didn’t get the 4% -5% annual GDP Trump said, we got share buybacks and CEO bonuses.
So if we’re going to do infrastructure we’re going to have to raise the taxes to get it.

That is what is done today with the gas tax. If you drive more miles you will use more gas, therefore you will pay more in gas tax. Since heavy vehicles are less efficient, they use more gas which means they pay more in gas tax. With all that said, it appears the gas tax needs to be much higher. I have an EV and my state charges a fee with my registration that essentially pays my share of road maintenance…which is completely fair.

I think BEV adoption will slow itself due to the negative feedback effect: More BEVs = less demand for petroleum = lower petroleum prices = less of a financial incentive to own a BEV. I think for BEVs to sell they need to go the Tesla route and just blow comparably priced ICE out of the water from a driving perspective.

Saudi Arabia is cutting production of oil higher gasoline prices will be here in a few months.

Ron Swanson's Mustache

Ghawar is no longer the monster it used to be, the Saudis have been having trouble with maintaining production capacity for around a decade.

By the time enough BEVs are on the road to have a significant reduction in demand for oil, the EV revolution will be growing fast enough that nothing will slow it significantly. It doesn’t matter if gasoline is nearly free, once people realize that driving a BEV is so much better, so much more pleasant, and that it’s much more convenient to charge up at home or at work than having to visit the gas station every week.

Good thing that Tesla, or better, Musk the messiah is saving as all!
You have to sell a lot of electric cars just to offset all the CO2 released in the atmosphere by a launching spacex rocket

Right, we shouldn’t be exploring space because of rocket emissions. Great unrelated sidebar to this article. Musk is the enemy, good call.

General Atomics had the nuclear option with Project Orion.

Ron Swanson's Mustache

And Gerald Bull was well on his way to developing cannons capable of achieving orbit when he was given the Seth Rich treatment.

Unfortunately, neither big cannons or small nuke plants are currently feasible methods for reaching orbit.

NASA had the NOVA rockets for 3rd stage on the Saturn 5 for manned space exploration to Mars

Project Daedalus

Your argument is pointless, CO2 is the same whether it comes from a truck or from a rocket, and Musk is neither the enemy nor the savior. And spacex hasn’t explored anything. And, if it goes to Mars, who cares really. If Tesla/Musk would actually care about the environment they would sell EVs at cost and make their power/drivetrains available at OEM costs for conversions. And spacex would use some carbon neutral non poisonous propellant

Sell at cost, means the company can not grow and we would be stuck at 1000 units a year!

“Sell at cost, means the company can not grow and we would be stuck at 1000 units a year!”

And cost would be correspondingly (sky)high!

Tesla “Ope sourced” all their patents in 2014. So go right ahead and build those conversion kits

https://www.tesla.com/blog/all-our-patent-are-belong-you

in brackets is the right way to put it
Grow up guys, Tesla is a publicly traded company and investors want just to make money. And Musk simply loves to be a “virtual” billionaire, I would too.
Bottom line, if you release tonnes of CO2 every time you launch a rocket, you are not in a position to point fingers

Said it before, there is no point arguing with logic and common sense with followers of a cult, whose messiah can do no wrong

DIPTHROAT A SpaceX rocket produces approximately the same amount of CO2 as an Airbus 380 flight from London to San Francisco.
I guess your against satellite TV, Cell phones, Internet. GPS, Weather information all the things and more that satellites orbiting earth provide the planet. How would you put the satellites in orbit without a rocket.

Ron Swanson's Mustache

He probably shouldn’t even be posting on this website, as there’s a fairly good chance that somewhere along the line his goofy, low-effort troll posts were bounced off of a communications satellite.

“DIPTHROAT A SpaceX rocket produces approximately the same amount of CO2 as an Airbus 380 flight from London to San Francisco.”

He’s made up his mind; don’t confuse him with the facts!

What does it mean to “open source” a patent? All patents are freely available to view.

Using a patent that is protected requires you to get permission and negotiate a fee with the patent holder.

A relevant quote re making a patent “open source”:

Patent abandonment is an affirmative act at the U.S. Patent Office in which one dedicates pending patent rights over to the public. Abandonment can occur at various points after an application is originally filed and throughout the life of the subsequently issued patent. Once purposely abandoned, all rights are lost for good.

https://www.macdonaldillig.com/don-t-give-up-the-ship-a-patent-abandonment-folly.html

But despite what Tesla has claimed, it has never abandoned its patent rights. Any company which wants to take Tesla up on its offer of a “free” license has to make its own patents free for use in the same fashion… which is almost certainly why nobody has accepted Tesla’s offer.

If you doubt that’s true, then read the terms of service in the fine print for yourself:

https://www.tesla.com/about/legal#patent-pledge

Pushy — you repeatedly misrepresent this issue.

1) “open source” is NEVER an “Abandonment”. Open source is the exact opposite of Abandonment. Abandonment allows anyone else take ownership of the IP and charge for it if they want. Open source maintains ownership of the IP, it simply outlines the conditions where no payment is needed to use that IP. The IP ownership is not abandoned.

2) I’ve heard the argument that one clause or another IMPLIES that other companies must give up their own patents. But the pledge EXPRESSLY states “no rights shall be deemed granted, waived or received by IMPLICATION”.

The phrase “no rights shall be deemed granted, waived or received by implication” means that you CANNOT point to some other part of the pledge and then claim it implies it grants Tesla rights to some other company’s IP.

I feel like you and Pushmi are in agreement. He didn’t say open source was abandonment and asserted that people can’t simply go and use Tesla’s patents.

Thank you.

SpaceX is reusing rocket boosters, and those boosters have a non-zero manufacturing footprint. It’s easy to just focus on carbon emissions from use, but there’s way more than just that to consider, in any industry. Space exploration will happen regardless, and so I’d rather have companies like SpaceX be involved that have innovative ways to reduce the overall cost (and, by extension, environmental impact) than traditional companies that don’t want to take those innovation risks.

Tesla re-supplys the space station and one of the things the space station will be working on is making 3D hearts. Much of the technology we use daily is from things learned from the space program.

Ron Swanson's Mustache

If you really cared about rocket emissions, you would refuse to use Google Maps or GPS.

Clearly Dipthroat is clueless about technology.

I think dip…. needs a modified last part of his name.

Ron Swanson's Mustache

Musk has proposed building facilities that utilize the Sabatier Process to generate rocket fuel here on Earth. If done, any emissions from a rocket launch would be carbon neutral.

Furthermore, the global emissions from all rocket launches are barely a blip on the carbon emissions scale compared to emissions from factories, power plants, trucks, trains, and ocean-going cargo ships.

Furthermore, there’s currently no other viable technology for launching spacecraft, so criticizing SpaceX on this point is a ridiculous attempt at concern trolling.

Furthermore, there are about a billion cars in use worldwide. If there were as few cars in use every year as large rockets launched every year, then the emissions and pollution from cars wouldn’t be a problem.

But of course, the idea of “scale” is beyond the understanding of a green-eyed Elon hater like Dipsh… er, Dipthroat.

Space X is building the reusable second stage prototype hopper for their much bigger BFR rocket and the launch pad to test it as we speak. It uses their larger and more powerful Raptor engines that will burn methalox rather than the lox/kerosene that the Falcon 9 uses. The reason they are switching to methalox isn’t because it contains more energy per unit of mass (it actually is lower than lox/kerosene) but because methane and lox can be easily manufactured on the surface of Mars for refueling in order for the return trip of this upper BFR stage (First reusable stage will also use Raptor engines). There isn’t any practical or easy way to make kerosene on the surface of Mars. The side benefit of using methalox is that the process they will use to manufacture it on the surface of Mars will be used to make it here on Earth. All you need is electricity, water and CO2. Electricity derived from renewable energy like on-site solar or wind can electrolyze water to make your oxygen needed for the lox and a simple reaction between captured atmospheric CO2 and hydrogen (from earlier electrolyzed water) creates the methane needed through a… Read more »

Wow! You are so obviously jealous of Elon Musk that your eyes must be green. I’m embarrassed for you. 😳

The difference between burning 9.3 billion gallons (2016), and an estimated 9.4 billion gallons (2019), shows that the expected EV miles, yet to be driven this year, will have a negligible impact on reaching peak US gasoline consumption.

The current 2% EV adoption rate, here in the US, probably needs to approach double digits (10%), before we see significant downward trajectory, of the gasoline demand bell curve.

The %EV will increase over time. Batteries are still really expensive and in limited supply. As prices continue to drop, and battery technology continues to improve EVs will replace ICE. It will take time.

Well, I really wish they’d also increase the gas tax. That would help pay for highway infrastructure, and also further compel people to consider more fuel efficient vehicles.

I know it’s wishful thinking, but to me that is an important component to making a shift towards more fuel efficient vehicles in the US, including EVs.

You can voluntarily give to uncle sam the amount of extra Kerosene tax you feel your airplane should have. Please speak for yourself if you want your taxes increased. There is a box on the 1040 form for you to make a donation should you feel bad about it. But please use your own money. BTW on another subject, after equalization I got 57.4 KWH on my 37,000 mile BOLT ev. Up from 52.5.

My voluntary giving to Uncle Sam has no effect on people’s decisions to buy a fuel efficient vehicle. I will happily pay higher tax on airplane fuel costs and vehicle fuel costs as needed.

People love to complain about more taxes but our deficit gets ignored.

Economically: tax more or spend less, to avoid eventual default and hyperinflation. Simple macroeconomics.

Environmentally: Incentivize EVs more or penalize gas vehicles more. Either get the same result. Extending economic principles here, there is a real cost for our health and military deployments not reflected in the cost of gasoline. (I’m not even talking about CO2 Bill, I’m talking particulate emissions and the like that cause increased asthma and respiratory illnesses). It is basic economics 101 to tax the gas to allow its cost to properly reflect those other costs to society.

Noted…. Now leave my taxes alone. I want them to go down drastically. No one here cares about what I want. Which is mostly to be left alone. That’s what most people in other countries want as far as the USA is concerned – namely to be left alone.

The times – they’re a changin’.

For what it’s worth, I want my taxes to go down drastically as well. But I’d still like a higher fuel tax. The fuel tax I pay or would have to pay if it were increased is still a drop in the bucket compared to all the other NY state taxes I have to pay and, unlike a fuel tax, I have no real control over those other taxes… namely property tax and income tax.

The % of EV’s isn’t necessarily a good indicator either. EV owners are by and large disproportionately lower energy users anyway – shorter drives and smaller vehicles to begin with due to the nature of the vehicles available.

An increased percentage would definitely help, but the big thing is to make practical vehicles and charging systems for those that need bigger vehicles (trucks etc) and those that drive longer distances. Things like the Model 3 and Rivian are a start, but they’re still pretty niche markets and are still not acceptable products for the majority in the above two categories.

What would be ideal is that people drive vehicles that meet their needs for 97% of the time and not their egos or outliers like when they might need to pick up mulch/landscaping or tow a boat or a big trailer once a year. Smaller trailers are very practical and a good option for regular cars and are common in Europe. These trailers can meet a lot of peoples needs for many occasions. Another option, rent a vehicle for the unique occasions. People also don’t need (for comfort or financially) huge travel trailers that they use once or twice a year, but that is a subject for another day.

Another thing that doesn’t help in peoples’s car buying decision is they think they need to bring everything with them on a car trip or a recreational outing…use common sense people.

The issue is, even with the 97% idea, that’s still potentially a fair chunk of the time that requires hiring a vehicle for the day/weekend/week. Once you start getting to that stage it can quite quickly become more expensive than just paying extra for more fuel over the year on a bigger vehicle – even more so with an EV. That’s before you start getting into the inconvenience of When this discussion comes up it always seems to land on Pickups and SUV’s but the reality of the situation is many of those modern vehicles are no worse than many of the Saloons driving around. Most people don’t “need” a people carrier most of the time, nor do they “need” a BMW 3 or 5 series most of the time, all of which will use a similar/greater amount of fuel as the average CUV. For the vast majority of people the Zoe would be the car for those 97% of journeys, but lets not pretend that most people would buy one, especially in North America. Interestingly though, one of the reasons for the increasingly larger vehicles on the roads appears to be associated with safety features built into vehicles now… Read more »
You have valid points and my original reply wasn’t meant to be towards you, just the thought in general that people “need” bigger cars. I agree with most of what you said. Regarding the renting for an extended time and cost, I agree it is an inconvenience but financially it is still probably much cheaper. You can’t just look at gas prices. Total cost of ownership needs to come into play. For instance, a Honda Accord is probably at least $15K cheaper than a basic Ford F150 4X4. $15K lower initial costs, no trailer costs (purchase price, registration, maintenance, etc…probably well over $10K just for a small travel trailer). plus lower car registration fees/taxes, and fuel costs goes a long way towards lodging/meals (instead of pulling a travel trailer) or truck rentals options. Plus, if you are pulling a trailer, the gas mileage is really bad and you need to pay at many RV sites. I agree child car seats take up a lot of space. There isn’t much room between the back seats of our car if there are two infant car seats…but it is manageable for all local trips (assuming a fit average adult). However, the need for… Read more »
Most of my points were general ones as well. We’re singing from broadly the same page. 🙂 I would say however that there’s a big difference in lifestyle choice between hotelling and those that have travel trailers (and many that sleep in the back of trucks). A lot have them because of the freedom they give, and the comfort of a hotel room in the middle of nowhere (where there isn’t any permanent lodging for miles around). Personally I don’t get the massive travel trailers either – they’re not good in more remote locations, awkward to drive around and as you say, expensive. Smaller, sturdier version and things like Truck campers are very different however. You truly can go to the middle of nowhere (say a remote trailhead) and camp. That’s the reason many have them. Sure, they could camp in a tent as well, but trailers are better in cold weather and if you’re not backpacking then you’ve probably got a lot of stuff and need a vehicle bigger than a sedan/saloon anyway (especially if the camping spot is down a rough road. There are a huge amount of free and cheap camping spots in North America – the… Read more »

I wonder what the fuel savings are over the aggregate of all EV sales and miles? (Versus just Tesla)

in mathmatics a dead planet earth is still 100%

The only thing which will kill Earth is the Sun when it turns into a Red Giant. Luckily we have billions of years. Humans will be long gone before that happens.

That’s a huge science fail.
Your daddy should’a voted democrat to get you good schools.

America spends quite a bit more per student than many other countries in the world, many of whom score better on tests; throwing more money at American schools is clearly not working.

Parents could limit the amount of Nintendo and TV there kids watch. Parents in the US need to take responsibility for their kids education. Maybe we need parents to have classes to learn how to raise a kid before they have a kid.
Instead we blame the schools teachers and government.

In countries with really good educational systems, teaching is done by professionals who are paid and treated like professionals.

Here in the U.S., teachers are treated as second- or third-rate low-paid State workers, treated with contempt by their own students, and told “Those who can, do; those who can’t, teach.”

Schools in the U.S. are little more than day-care centers, designed to keep children out of trouble and to accept authority unquestioningly. Schools in the U.S. make little or no attempt to teach children to think for themselves, or to practice critical thinking. (If they did, there is no way anyone like the Orange One would ever have been elected President.)

It won’t be a dead Earth but a damaged one with dead humanity. It will simply be one out of many other extinction events in Earth’s history but this one will be unique in that it will be the first extinction event caused by a species of Earth rather than an astronomical or geological event. And ironically it could cause extinction or near extinction of the very species that created it. It will certainly cause a mass extinction of many other species especially the millions of vulnerable species already living on the edge. This is normal for this many species to be on the edge and is a part of nature and natural selection but when stressed by a rapid change in the global environment (in hundreds of years not the tens or hundreds of thousands of years that normal change happens) then mass extinction happens. Then there are ecosystems that depend on some of those species that are vulnerable so when they go so do in part or whole those ecosystems. This then reverberates through the entire biosphere with only the most robust and adaptable species or the luckiest species left. We have no idea how this will play… Read more »

The US withdrawal from the Paris climate accord was a huge setback to curbing CO2 emissions and I cant see anything on the horizon for things to get any better.

No, it was not. The Paris Accord was a joke and all it did was transfer money from US Taxpayers to third world sh1tholes.

Yes it would, One of the directives would be that motor manufacturers would be duty bound to reduce vehicle emissions across all model ranges in order to help attain a 40% reduction in emissions by 2030 as in Europe.

Reduction if everyone abide by the limits. If Kyoto taught us anything, it’s that signing means nothing. US did not sign, yet cut more CO2 than most signers.

But even if everyone stick to the limit, how long do you think that’ll delay the level of CO2 rise? Too often, people think Paris is going to “save the world” when it fact it’s merely a delay of few months by 2100 while costing trillions.

If GHG is a real problem, there already exists a solution: nuclear (which Obummer canceled research). But nuclear is too cheap and effective compared to other “solutions” that distribute money. This is why climate change hysteria is a scam.

Nuclear is to cheap. You certainly are uninformed. Trump wanted to add additional subsidies for coal and nuclear plants because they can’t compete with renewable energy.
Georgia spent 21 billion on half finished nuclear plants already at Vogel units 3 and 4. South Carolina also has had huge cost overruns at V.C. Summers units 3 and 4. These were the new Advanced Nuclear Plants that were suppose to be cheaper and safer to operate. Also states have blocked transporting the spent fuel for plants across the US to the Nevada spent fuel site and Nevada won’t accept the fuel. Also existing nuclear plants are storing large amounts of spent fuel on site reaching limits on how much they can store.

Nuclear has sense, even at higher costs, because its rapid respone and adaptability to demand. Renewables are very variable, we need other sources more flexible that cover the lack of production when needed and/or new technologies like improved electric net managment, batteries to supply in peaks, services like car to grid, etc.

Did you read what I wrote Georgia spent 21 billion on half finished Vogel units 3 and 4 that will never be finished as Nuclear plants
Who do you think is going to pay for this boondoggle. The ratepayer, just think about how much renewable energy, transmission lines and storage with 21 billion.

“The Paris Accord was a joke and all it did was transfer money from US Taxpayers to third world sh1tholes.”

I wonder if this guy is on the payroll of Vladimir Putin’s troll farms? He’s certainly here for no other purpose than to spread anger and divisiveness.

Withdrawing from the Paris Accord at the federal level doesn’t mean things aren’t happening at the local and state levels.

One such example: http://climatemayors.org/

Trump was a huge setback for the planet. He’s completely unable to tell the truth.

I can only speak for my own situation, but it actually curbed CO2 emissions. Every time this administration did something asinine relative to the environment, I set out to thwart it with my own efforts. Between the EPA moves under Sessions, Trump’s push of coal, the reduction of CAFE standards, and the withdrawal from the Paris accord, I decided to chart my own course. First it was finding cleaner electricity, then it was buy a PHEV, then it was switching to 100% carbon free electricity so that all my EV miles are emissions free. When I can afford it, I will get a pure EV to further that purpose.
Either you are part of the solution or you are part of the problem. I choose the former.

If you went out of your way to implement your solution, it’s wasted effort. As this article shows, others are plenty willing to fill your “solution”. Now imagine this on a global scale, and your effort is like trying to drain the sea using a 1 gallon bucket. Yes, it’s a solution, but not meaningful.

You must have a very low opinion of yourself, BoltEV/Sparky, to try to belittle the real achievements of others in this manner. If more people did as PhEVfan is doing, then the world would be a much better place in many ways!

“I am only one, but still I am one. I cannot do everything, but still I can do something; and because I cannot do everything, I will not refuse to do something that I can do.” –Helen Keller

Wrong again silversod. The USA has decreased its CO2 emissions greater than any other industrialized county; for those who care about such things.

Wrong again Bill Howland, The EPA this week has just rolled back emission restrictions AGAIN by 35% over currant law.

I can’t understand the SUV tendence. I live in Europe, where almost every km of track is asphalted, most of people live in cities and travel over fantastic highways, families have 2-4 members…, and more and more drivers, buy unnefficient SUVs, that are also more expensive, heavy, boring to drive, too big for many streets and rural roads…. It’s ridiculous.
USA is even worst. It has no sense.

Also SUV’s ride and handle like ****.
The reverse pendulum effect, where every road bump is magnified by how high off the ground you are.
SUV’s drive like Buses.
“There’s always a sucker born every minute.”

Most families aren’t interested how well a car will go round a track. Car aficionados are a relatively niche group of people, with different wants and requirements. Put yourself into the shoes of the parent of a young child, that would rather lean across to put their kid into a car seat and “suffer” a less hard ride, than lean down into a saloon and deal with a much harsher ride.

Most “SUV’s” that are sold now are built on hatchback chassis but have more space than (and comparable fuel economy to) most estates. The Honda CRV was built on the Civic platform, but has more interior space than the much longer Accord. Sure, the CRV isn’t as fuel efficient as the Civic, but people aren’t replacing Civic hatches with the CRV, they are replacing Accord saloons/estates with it.

Most families I know usually have one small car and one bigger car – the smaller car is usually something like a Fiesta/Polo, and the bigger car – which used to be a saloon – is now an “SUV” (CUV). Fuel economy wise it’s basically like for like, but people are sacrificing the “performance” of the saloon for the greater interior space, better (softer) ride, more head and boot space and better resistance to potholes and kerbs of a CUV.

While they are still aorund, most SUV’s around today share far more with the Civics and mid sized cars they replaced, than the Discoveries/Range Rovers/Land Cruisers and Shoguns of yesteryear. Those latter vehicles are what many nay sayers seem to compare them to.

Comparable economy…. well, 0,5 liters more per 100 km, is not huge but is quite important at the end of a car’s life. As the tyres, more expensive. And the purchase, even worst if you need to finance. Here you can see the Seat Ateca, a SUV very popular in my country with 1.5 Tsi engine from VW: https://www.spritmonitor.de/de/uebersicht/44-Seat/1526-Ateca.html?fueltype=2&constyear_s=2018&power_s=140&power_e=155&powerunit=2 And here, the Seat Leon ST, a wagon with the same engine, very popular too: https://www.spritmonitor.de/de/uebersicht/44-Seat/1353-Leon_ST.html?fueltype=2&constyear_s=2018&power_s=140&power_e=155&powerunit=2 There is one liter in average. Gasoline price today is 1,2 € every 100 km. Is not too much, but in 100.000 km will be 1200 €. About pricing. The well equipped Seat Leon ST Xcellence Edition DSG 1.5 TSi costs 26.000 € official price with metallic paint. The Seat Ateca Xcellence Edition DSG 1.5 TSi costs 30.500 € in the same conditions and equipment. The Leon is more effective, safe (better stop distance, stability and agility) and fun to drive. Has better performance, is cheaper to run and own, has even has more luggage room, is 4.500 € cheaper, good enough for a family…. it has no sense to buy a Ateca istead a Leon. But lot of people do. And this example can… Read more »

“I can’t understand the SUV tendence. I live in Europe…”

Think of it as an arms race. Those with the biggest and heaviest cars (well, light trucks) “win”. Every pickup commercial on TV — and that is a lot of commercials — is preaching the message that what “real” men want is an oversized “macho” pickup-on-steroids truck.

Unfortunately, even American women have bought into the argument that SUVs and pickups are “safer” because they are portrayed as big, tough cars that will protect us from the dangers of the road. (Note how many SUVs and CUVs are styled to look “mean” and tough. Even the Tesla Model X follows that trend.)

I agree. Not only american woman, in Europe I can see the same effect, a domminant driving position gives a false safety perception, but it seems that these cars suffer more accidents than others. Maybe they are unsafe, maybe the average driver of this car is worst, maybe the false safety perception push drivers to commit mistakes….

In Spain we have a word, “postureo”, is when somebody poses and likes when other people look at them with supposed envy. Many people buy SUVs for “postureo”.

good post.
I find it funny when so many ppl speak about America’s love of SUV/Trucks, while ignoring the fact that these are taking off EVERYWHERE including Europe and ESP. China.

Not just America. SUV/Trucks are booming ALL OVER THIS PLANET. China and Europe are big into both already.

I drive a VW Touran (not much smaller than a SUV) not for the reason I have kids as I don’t have any but I like the way I get in and out the car. Seat position is higher which I like. Can drive 1000km in one go (only piss breaks) and get out of the car without feeling tired or worn out. Use 5.6l/100km is not a lot for that car.

Things could of been a lot worse if there were no EV’s and people still bought big trucks, let’s start today if you buy a big truck there should be health warnings on the windscreen and let customers know they will be prosecuted in the future for the damage done to everyone’s health and the health of the planet. With all the evidence mounting these polluters can pay for the damage they caused, we can bypass the legacy manufactures and let the customer make the wright choices.

Ah, Evannex. When you aren’t writing puff pieces about Tesla, you’ve decided to get on board the climate equivalency train. No, increasing truck sales do nothing to “negate” reduction of emissions from electric vehicle sales, and claiming they do fuels hate (pun intentional). And no, nobody should “feel virtuous” for driving a Tesla. It’s a car, not a morality lesson.

This

I certainly agree that it’s absurd, it’s a mathematical fantasy to claim that emissions of SUVs and CUVs “negates” the lack of emissions from Tesla cars. Pollution and global warming isn’t an abstract equation where everything has to balance; it’s a very real problem, and EVs are just part of the solution.

As for not “feeling virtuous” for driving a Tesla car… well, those who do drive Tesla cars know better! 😀

Tesla model Y can’t come soon enough

EVs have unique, maximum torque at 0 mph. Everything from Prius to any other hybrid electric and electric should get out of their programmed ‘limp wrist’ acceleration and use maximum torque for the conditions. Use the rotation difference between the powered and unpowered wheels to allow maximum acceleration.

EV performance is the hook that can shame the gassers. Let the gassers be the loud, belching, rapidly falling apart cars while anything with an electric motor smoothly, powerfully accelerate the cars.

“Use the rotation difference between the powered and unpowered wheels to allow maximum acceleration.”

Eh? Can you explain this please? Are you saying wheel spin actual makes a car faster? You’re right that a 7% slip rate is ideal at lower speeds, but I somehow don’t think that’s what you meant.

EV’s aren’t that fast either. They’re responsive, yes, but they feel fast to people who don’t know what fast is, in the same way some people think diesel’s are fast, and as you say it’s because of the torque, but it’s only a feeling, it’s not reality. If you read reviews they always say something along the lines of “the manufacturer quotes a 4.5 second 0 to 60, time but it feels faster”, feels being the key word. The EV’s that are legitimately fast tend to be very expensive, like the Tesla 100’s and the NIO type stuff.

“Can you explain this please?”

He’s obviously very confused, so no, he can’t.

EV performance is great for a Top Trumps game, and for those that love fast cars. For the majority of the market it’s pretty far down the list of wants/requirements.

The big issue for most people now is the range (number) of EV models, the price and to a lesser extent things like charging time, infrastructure and driving range. The models will come, the infrastructure will come, it just takes time.

Once they are available at competitive prices across most segments (not just the luxury segment) people will buy them, but even then acceleration won’t be the biggest draw in most of the world.

It would be interesting to see what the chart would have looked like if there were no EVs

Pre ordered a Rivian R1S to replace my i3s, will never, ever, ever go back to an ICE. Credit to Tesla for leading the way!

Rivian would do it.

People don’t like to be told they are easily manipulated by marketing and advertisement, but it’s true… and really easy from the perspective of plain ol’ psychological conditioning. People are exposed to hundreds of truck ads a day in the media, papers, TV, Internet, on the street..It is pervasive and omnipresent. Ordinary people buy what is offered and what is trendy.
That’s the way they do it.
P.R. is a science of mass unconscious mind manipulations. Corporations pay these stealthy wizards to devise progressive propaganda campaigns that are beating us in the head every day.
Rationality is no match against permanent exposure to such conditioning.

Haha, you have all upvotes and no downvotes because the typical liberals who browse this site didn’t read it to the end, much like how they only read the headlines of their favorite liberal rags and spout them as truth. They nodded to themselves in smug agreement, thinking they were oh so enlightened and above it all because they didn’t fall for silly SUV and truck commercials. Meanwhile they spend every night lapping up late night “comedy” propaganda that only serves to program them further. A+ comment.

I feel sorry for you….maybe you are just young and will grow out of it….hopefully.

Such a predictable, condescending response.

Vladimir Putin thanks you for your hateful and divisive comments. Do you collect a paycheck from a Russian troll farm?

“Rationality is no match against permanent exposure to such conditioning.”

Training children in school to exercise critical thinking, and to think for themselves instead of being good little sheep, would certainly help!

Not only are they losing money burning more gas than a Tesla, they’re burning more gas than a real car. And I see the Jeep is becoming popular. Which has the worst reliability record out there.
So, losing money there too.

It’s Tesla fault! now fossils want to be as fast as Tesla, so they have to buy big engines….. :-p

EVs are not the next cool tech innovation. They are e-cigarettes. And just like them, there will be no market for them until the real ones are banned.

An EV is an overpriced solution to a problem most people don’t want to face. Buying any EV, except a Tesla, is like talking to a doctor about your cancer. The marketing miracle of Tesla is convincing people that chemo is cool!

I gotta disagree on a number of your points. first e-cigarettes is exploding, they barely existed 10 years ago and already have about 7% market share in the US, and that number is increasing year over year, that may not be as big of a dramatic disruption like uber or smartphones, but it is still a disruption to a very old industry that shows no signs of stopping. there will be no market for them until the real ones are banned. – you can still buy horses but why would you when cars are so much better? EV’s are only 2-3 years from being the same price as its ICE counterpart, and even with low gas prices, EV’s are more efficient and will be cheaper to own than gas car, even with the massive subsidies oil already receives. ICE doesn’t need to be banned just like horses are not banned, EV’s just need to be better which they are very close to achieving in every way. so far they are winning in performance, ongoing costs with maintenance and fueling. only things they are losing at right now is upfront cost, charging infrastructure and charging time. upfront cost and charging infrastructure… Read more »

Don’t know where you live, but here smoking normal cigarettes in public spaces has been banned for years, which is why the sales of e-cigarettes are skyrocketing, as I said.

If EVs become cheaper than ICE vehicles they will take over. That has not happened yet. I’m sure InsideEVs will have a big article about it when that happens. Until then you are only speculating.

Your holier-than-thou criticism of people who drive EV cars, rather than live as primitive hunter-gatherers, would be less hypocritical if you weren’t using a computer to surf the internet and post comments there.

“Above: The electric vehicle threat to gasoline might currently be overstated – our gasoline demand has never been higher ”
Old graph, old statement.

2017 U.S. Total Plug-in Sales = 199,826
2018 U.S. Total Plug-in Sales > 360,273

NPNS! SBF!
Volt#671 + BoltEV + Model 3

End the US government subsides for fossil fuels and this will flip on a dime. Sadly the political right in the US will never stop feeding our tax dollars to the oil companies. All I can do I have done. I have solar. I cut my grass with an electric mower and I have a Model 3. Once the Model Y (or another nice small SUV EV) is available my last ICE machine will leave my life. I look forward to it.

Political left controlled law making and passing branches of gov’t, during Obummer era, yet they did nothing. Scapegoating is not going to solve anything, look inward toward your affliates’ shortcomings before you spread the blame.

“Scapegoating is not going to solve anything…”

Yet that’s precisely what you’re doing. Not to mention name-calling.

Vladimir Putin appreciates your divisive comments.

We need 1/2 Ton EV Pickups and EV SUVs like mad! Build them and people will buy them because this is the predominant style of vehicle people want and in many cases actually need. Sedans … not so much. Hatchbacks like my lovely little BoltEV … although arguably more functional than a sedan, maybe even less so.

It’s all about $$. The new Kona and Hyundai BEV SUVs will help, but they are “tiny” compared to a Tahoe or F-150.
F-150 has been the best selling vehicle for 20 years.

No Tesla battery is big enough to power the inefficient brick shape of a pickup yet (and the reason the MX is shaped like a pill).
Hence, Rivian’s gigantic 180 kWH battery.

I would love to see battery prices drop by 10x to the “China” price where it would be stupid to buy ICE.
Right now, and for the foreseeable future, BEVs are too expensive to rationalize for most SUVs (additional 15-20k cost).

Diesel engines are the proper stop gap solution.

At last an article touching on the topic of what private EVs cannot accomplish regarding emission reductions. It is impossible for private EVs to reduce road emissions anywhere near what is required to successfully combat Climate Change. We need electric mass transit to make the emission reductions required in the time frame required. This means taxis and minibuses. It means lots of ultra-fast charging infrastructure. It does not mean banning taxis from Supercharging like Tesla has done. Tesla will not make any appreciable difference to emissions with their policy of obstructing the most effective way of doing it.

Weaning transportation off fossil fuels is only part of the solution. We also need to end the use of fossil fuels in industry and in generating electricity.

But it’s literally insane to denigrate efforts to switch from using gasmobiles to using BEVs. Just because that’s not 100% of the solution doesn’t mean it’s an unimportant part!

The counter-productive argument in this article is one of the worst cases of “The perfect driving out the good” that I’ve ever seen.

The pictured U.S. Gasoline Demand graph is only showing demand since 2012. The same graph, if more completely shown from the year 2000, would show that the 2012 gasoline low-demand was a demand dip, caused by the recession.

To achieve a true net reduction when a new EV goes on the road a comparable vehicle must be REMOVED from the road. Buy them back, scrap and recycle them. Otherwise the true net situation is worse as you still have the old I.C.E. on the road AND you have the new EV consuming fossil spewing electricity (or less if you have a renewable source but still some).

Since Carbon Dioxide is a colorless, odorless gas – it is deceptive to show water vapor escaping from tail pipes.

But what else is new?

There are many things that can’t be seen but we know they are there…
Are you suggesting that there is no CO2 coming out or that they should post a pic of something invisible?

That’s be honest. I’m also sick of seeing nuclear power cooling towers in climate change scam propaganda. Nuclear power is THE best solution to GHG reduction at the moment, and those cooling towers should be praised, not demonized.

Hey, Sparky is right for once!

Showing nuclear power cooling towers when talking about pollution or climate change is at best gross ignorance, at worst neo-Luddite anti-nuclear propaganda. What’s coming out of those cooling towers is clean, safe water vapor — nothing more!

No – but this is just a variant of the HUGE SMOKESTACK pictures taken on very frigid days when PLUMES of billowing Water Vapor look like so much dirty pollution. Sorry, but it is a visual lie.

If you’ve been paying attention – I’ve been trying to get people to look at pollution you can see – but it is like beating a dead horse. Some subjects just don’t have one word answers, and require a bit of thought.

This is exactly why emissions need to be taxed (already the case in Sweden, and upped during 2018). For such a change to take place in the US however, there needs to be wider political consensus that is in the interest of the environment and thus general public health. Hence the problem we see today.

US isn’t Sweden. You can bet your life that extra tax money will find ways to drop more bombs on people outside of US.

Falling sales of cars are more than compensated by the rising sales of crossovers which brought record revenues for automakers.
In December, crossovers captured 40% share in the market which that of cars dipped below 30% for the 1st time.

This trend will continue as many more crossovers are hitting the market.
Plugins will cut the gas consumption in China where record amount of vehicles are sold, but in USA it will still take time and increased sales to make any impact.

Why would Evannex, which is a pro-Tesla company, put out such a negative “glass half empty” article? And why would InsideEVs copy it? And what’s the message here: “You might as well not bother to buy a plug-in EV, ‘cuz it won’t matter” ???
O_o

Let’s turn that around, to a “glass half full” description of exactly the same thing: Tesla alone already has enough cars on the road to make a significant reduction to the year-on-year increase in pollution and greenhouse gasses caused by the growing number of cars on the road worldwide! And with other auto makers putting their own EVs into production, that’s going to keep reducing the pollution human activity produces, reducing it more and more every year!

“I am only one, but still I am one. I cannot do everything, but still I can do something; and because I cannot do everything, I will not refuse to do something that I can do.” — Helen Keller

Or as radical activists said in the sixties: “If you’re not part of the solution, then you’re part of the problem.”

Only in Spain, 551.000 SUVs were sold in 2018 from a total of 1.334.000 cars, the 41%. In 2017 were 434.000 SUVs of 1.241.000, a 34%. If every SUV makes an average of 15.000 km/year, and if only the half of all the purchased had been normal cars, with the 0,5 liters gap of fuel consumption between a car and a SUV, we will have burned more than 20.000.000 liters of gasoline every year, only for the ego and for follow ridiculous tendences.

A perfect example of leaving the fate of the planet up to the so-called “free market.” The apparent “lowest cost” choice comes with climate crisis and worldwide ecological and environmental devastation.

If we had a political and electoral system that resulted in legislatures and in a Congress that fairly represent the will of the American people, they would be enacting stronger incentives for buying EVs and rapidly increasing disincentives for buying ICE vehicles, banning them at some point, like numerous European countries are doing.

This really is not a big deal for the est, as long as Tesla continues to make new models. In the west, new vehicles are basically, replacing old ones. So, yeah, These are replacing HIGH-HIGHER MPG vehicles than what they are.
In the mean time, EV sales as we saw were linearly growing , and are not hitting exponential growth. By 2022, it will likely be moving to logarithmic growth. Legacy car makers will not be able to sell their ICE vehicles.

I still do the right thing and operate the most efficient vehicle for the right conditions. An econobox for long trips.. an electric bicycle for short trips whenever the weather allows.

But the more SUVs and trucks get on the road, the less safe i am in my car and on my bike, due to their height ( can’t see me as well ), and size ( a crash with one would be horrific )

Something needs to give, when people doing some semblance of the right thing are penalized and pressured into following those who don’t.

Fuel demand has plateaued. OPec has cut supply to rebalance again.

With Toyota et al pumping out more hybrids on the back of the diesel debacle and a flotilla of Buses, model 3s and many others will turn demand down at first slowly then at pace.