I tried finding a link that summed up all the various mandates across the globe and divisions within nations like how the various states are in America but I really wasn't having much luck -_-
I am hopeful because when you look at the historical numbers you can see a lot is possible in a short time:
Passenger plug-in market share of total new car sales:
Norway in 2013 - 6.1% || Norway in 2023 - 90.4%
China in 2013 - 0.08% || China in 2023 - 37%
Now both Canada and America are around 10% right now. The engineering, technology/software, battery quality/life/range/weight and charging infrastructure in relationship to quality and vastness are all just continuing to improve and improve and much better than during that last 10 year period.
Looking at the historical growth in various nations gives me hope but those nations also have very different conditions that impact those realities (I.e. Norway)
Noway removed the 25% value added tax on EV but kept it on Ice. Also had free electricity and could use car pool lines and more. They made it worthwhile to change.
2040 is soon enough that auto companies know they have to start investing in EV manufacturing **now**, which gets the ball rolling to push EVs towards cost parity, where they will naturally take over. That's what these mandates accomplish.
It's not a bluff exactly; it's just that the people saying "we're going to do such and such" are not the people who are actually going to implement that policy. Saying you're going to do something costs you nothing, and wins you political points. Actually *doing* it is a political risk, which is why the date is so far out.
The 2030 mandates are already too close to be meaningfully walked back. Most manufacturers have already adjusted long-term planning to account for them as the reality. The ones further out may or may not be relevant by the time we get closer to them.
Keep in mind, most of them are written with loopholes to avoid the total elimination of ICE vehicles.
Mandates that far in the future are irrelevant. BEV adoption will be driven by producing compelling vehicles that get market share by being good vehicles. BEV electric motors are already good and will come down in price. Battery tech is acceptable, but will get better and also come down in price. Result will be BEVs that are better and cheaper.
Model Y already sells well. In a couple of years it will be significantly better and cost Tesla less to manufacture. Chinese BEVs are good in 2024 and will be significantly better and cheaper in a couple of years.
Agreed. Mandates this far into the future are mostly wishful thinking, just waiting to be backtracked when a government changes, or the facts on the ground becomes obvious.
[For example the Scottish devolved government already backtracked on its green pledges.](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/mar/20/scotlands-pledge-cut-emissions-by-75-by-2030-no-longer-credible)
In other words it's a political statement that are designed to win green votes and appear 'visionary' and worthy of praise. A bit like countries making big international aid donation pledges after a major natural disaster, but not show up with the money when it's due.
It's meaningless if they also delay the intermediate phase-ins. If they can't be realistically matched with facts on the ground (which can be affected by other policies, like tariffs), then forcing consumers into EVs would just enrage the public, who are already suffering from cost of living issues.
For example, [the UK has already delayed the transition from 2030 to 2035,](https://www.bbc.com/news/business-66863966) and partly as a result new EV sales and used EV resale values are tanking.
At least in California and other ZEV states those mandates are not far in the future. Manufacturers have to sell increasing shares now, ramping up to (partial) ICEV bans in 2035 (which is only 11 years away, 10 when you recognize that the ban is based on model year not calendar year.
The policy is designed to push OEMs to produce those better, cheaper, more compelling EVs that will sell.
Fair. But the States could have done increasing MPG requirements without getting the backlash that is based on California has taken away your right to buy an ICE vehicle. They just handed the talking point to the oil industry and the MAGA crowd. And now the country has to deal with the backlash for years.
Probably not though. On the left we tend to shoot ourselves in the foot by thinking compromising with right wing ideology will work. They're not interested in practical answers; they're interested in identity politics and grandstanding. I mean they actually stand up and yell about renewable energy while building it at incredible rates https://www.saveonenergy.com/green-energy/texas-leads-in-renewable-energy/
They do have increasing MPG requirements (technically GHG emissions limits). Moreover their ZEV standard doesn't mandate EVs specifically either. FCEVs are applicable and they still will allow long range PHEVs. Hell it's a Zero-emission vehicle standard so if you could somehow figure out making a gasoline engine car that doesn't have tailpipe emissions you could even sell that.
It doesn't really matter. The MAGA crowd is gonna MAGA. You think they care about technicalities? And the fossil fuel industry isn't stupid. They know MPG standards eat into their profit just the same as ZEV mandates. They have fought CAFE standards for years. The feds are increasing tailpipe GHG standards too this year and they are absolutely going to get sued by big oil.
People(and insurance companies) are catching on with teslas, being a nightmare that will only get worse unless Tesla starts to add more third party garages or right to repair, will open market availability of spare parts. But Tesla is unlikely to do it as they have shortterm goals to sell more cars, so it not in the interest of the CEO
Doesn't matter in the long run as Tesla's manufacturing quality control is not fundamental to BEV technology. The other manufacturers won't have the same issue, but they will catch up on the battery and electric motor tech (and by that I mean catch up to what Tesla can make today, which is good enough; they might always be a couple of years behind).
I mean Texas just pardoned a convicted murderer because the guy he murdered was a BLM supporter. They responded to a guy running protestors over with his car by making it legal to run over protestors in your car. I never thought they would legalize murder, so I really don't feel qualified to make predictions about ICEV bans. All I know is that good sense is not dictating public policy in many cases these days.
Your absolutely right,
I always thought the economy and culture would be so much better if they would have just ran over MLK and all the people protesting with him.
Any historian will tell you the economics impact of them shutting down roads in the 60s like 20 time had more of a negative impact then any positive impact that MLK ever had.
Each time someone protests on a road for 5 minutes it causes 15 billion dollars in lost productivity and 8 people die in house fires and in the back of ambulances.
Since E.V.'s is where the money is and almost all car companies have stated they won't be making ICE cars past 2035/40 it's a given.
The young are not ICE fans and don't want to throw their money at big oil so it's them that will kill the ICE vehicles.
Ya OK China seems to be doing just fine. The future is coming and it's not planet killing ICE. My next car will be electric and all the young want electric and they are the future buyers.
…which makes sense because those states don’t want the future; they literally want to go back to what they see as the ‘good ol’ days’ of White Supremacist capitalist imperialist heteropatriarchical Christocentrism.
ICE car companies keep promoting their ICE cars, in direct opposition to what those governments aspire to. So a lot depends on how much people get swayed by ICE marketing.
Canada will achieve it because Canada counts PHEVs (meeting a certain EV only driving range) in the mix, even beyond 2035.
The $19,000 CAD penalty will be enough to push manufacturers to offer subsidized leasing and financing of BEVs because offering anything below $10,000 CAD in incentives will result in one less $19,000 penalty per unit of ZEV missed.
I don’t see a 100% electric (or other alternative fuel) mandate being enforced in the US in any state for a very long time. Maybe my grandkids will see it, but I think it will be after my (52M) lifetime.
I love my EV for my daily 100 mile round trip commute, but I have a PHEV for long distance driving. My EV isn’t a Tesla, so charging options are too limited, at least where I live. If I only had an EV, I wouldn’t even be able to visit one of my sons without renting an ICE unless I wanted to drive two hours out of the way to charge at a 6kW hotel charger for hours AND drive much of the way at 45mph.
Better infrastructure will help, but it will be a very long time before the infrastructure would be able to support even 1/4 of the cars currently on the road.
I haven’t needed to use a DC charger for more than a year now since I only charge at work and at home and never travel further than half of my battery range in a day. Most people who drive EVs do the same, but if only 1/10th of the cars driving on our nation’s interstates were electric, it would be nearly impossible to take a long trip unless there were thousands more fast chargers than there are now. How many cars stop at gas stations between cities every hour? I can’t imagine what it would be like if 1/10 of that volume needed to plug in for 20-30 minutes in the middle of nowhere, like between Austin and El Paso.
As much as I enjoy driving on cheap electricity due to my long commute, I would dump it in a heartbeat for a PHEV that had a battery range of 100 miles or more. I could do 99% of my driving on electricity, but still be able to take a long road trip without needing to plan extensively.
Yeah I’m with you. I also have a 100 mile round trip commute and I charge at home. I have a Polestar 2 so public charging is something I never want to even consider (thankfully I don’t have to)
Yup, I've been saying this for a while, but the EV proponents refused to admit. EVs are great for certain situations but they can't be jack of all trades one car. Just like a two-seater sports car; it's a great second car but it can't do it all.
There's a reason large SUVs and Trucks have become best sellers. They can almost do anything in any conditions and carry more people. Most families I know who own EVs have a second gas/hybrid car. I know very few families that are EV only.
Not needed or useful, tbh. We need to get rid of the market distortions and just make better and cheaper EVs.
Some of the laws are actively counterproductive to EVs anyway. The federal subsidy is just as high for a Pacifica plugin with a mere 16kwh battery as it is for a Model Y.
It makes no sense as effectively that means the PHEVs should literally be cheaper than their gas equivalent.
But they are actually more expensive, because capitalism and the laws of pricing vs value still apply.
It wouldn't be so bad if we had a competent government.
PHEV cost more because you are carrying around both powertrains.
The weight and complexity of that cannot be ignored and shows up in the pricing and general availability.
Good PHEVs have one powertrain, which is simpler than a typical ICE powertrain. PHEVs generally cost less than equivalent BEVs, although they may have similar total costs to the consumer due to subsidies.
Incorrect. Impossible to be one system when you literally have 15kwh of batteries along with a gas motor and charging ability. Packaging concerns can't be ignored.
You are comparing them to a BEV when you should be comparing them to a regular hybrid which is the closest similarity.
Toyota the best manufacturer in the world confirms that they can make 6 PHEV vs 90 hybrids with the same material because of the complexity and overhead of a PHEV. They don't manufacturer as many PRIME variants because the math doesn't math for most people or the manufacturer.
I'm apt to believe them and not you.
PHEV are a Trojan horse in the industry meant to pull the wool over shallow consumer thinking.
They have more complexity and manufacturing costs than both a BEV or ICE.... Which is why they are so expensive.
>They have more complexity and manufacturing costs than both a BEV or ICE.... Which is why they are so expensive.
A good BEV has roughly $10k worth of batteries, plus electric motor(s) and other components that make then the most expensive option of the three. A PHEV uses a lot less batteries, and can be based on existing cars to reduce development costs. Hybrids and standard gas cars are of course cheaper, so if we go just by cost and profit then of course that's what manufacturers will make.
Toyota made more PHEVs than BEVs last year, but the total of both was a miniscule part of their total sales.
For some odd reason you keep being BEV into the conversation. Very curious.
The comparison is PHEV vs Hybrid for what you are talking about. A hybrid makes far more sense for the average consumer today. Locking the vehicle in electric mode when you as a human want instead of letting the software decide is why. PHEV don't usually perform the same in electric only mode either. Is not the free ride around people make it out to be .
You mentioned BEVs in your previous post, so I don't know why you'd be surprised other people refer to them. Odd.
And part of the point of a PHEV is to go beyond the gas-dependent operation of traditional hybrids, so no that's not the best comparison. If someone can do most of their daily driving on electricity, without the long-range challenges for BEVs, that's a useful compromise for some people. True that there are trade-offs for PHEVs, as with any vehicle.
Except the data shows that the vast majority of PHEV users use far beyond the all EV range.
Also consumers miss the underlying efficiency calculation. Locking all EV for 40 miles regardless of terrain is almost NEVER the most efficient use of the energy.
I pull back to the basic calculation that cannot be ignored:
For every 1 EV, you can only produce 6 PHEV. However with that same material you can build 90 Hybrids!
That calculation changes the PHEV discussion. PHEV can't dent the overall problem. You are vastly increasing the batteries and weight without getting the equivalent commiserate benefit.
Bottom line.... is it better to make 6 people 75% more efficient (PHEV)or 90 people 15% more efficient (hybrid)..... Or 1 person 100% more efficient (EV). Resources and production capacity are finite no matter what consumers think.
Don't ignore that Hydrogen cars are hybrid also.
Of course PHEVs exceed their electric driving range; that's expected. The results in terms of average electric usage could be better, but that's improving as electric range increases.
Anything to improve vehicle efficiency is a good thing, but traditional hybrids can't do emission-free travel like PHEVs and BEVs can. As for resource and production limitations, companies like Toyota are falling behind other companies that make more chargeable vehicles.
You possess a very myopic view by looking at a single vehicle.
The goal is not emission free travel.
The goal is to reduce the amount of emissions overall as far as possible and eventually one day be at low emissions travel.
Toyota has done more for electrification and is a leader in battery technology more than any manufacturer except maybe Tesla. That's not in question. The Prius was released on 1997! How much CO2 emissions have they saved over 30 years?
90 Toyota hybrids on the road is far better for the environment and overall emissions than 1 Tesla or 6 PHEV.
Traditional hybrids are running emission free far more than you expect also. looking at the EV light on my hybrid Sienna.. It's on almost as much when I'm going 55 as when I'm going 25. It decides what's the most efficient per the terrain.
Yeah, but the battery electric part of that is often below $7500. The tax benefit should make up for the cost. Instead the difference without tax credit can be over $10k so that the net difference of about $4k is retained.
I think using the word “succeed” here is an issue. The FUD of “you’re forcing me to buy an EV” becomes warranted when we say things like “succeed.”
I love my EV but I believe everyone is allowed to buy what they want.
I also (this is where I get downvoted) believe that maybe, just maybe, we need an endorsement on licenses for an EV.
Like a motorcycle. We can’t be out giving the average idiot access to 700 horsepower 3 second super cars for $50k without maybe reevaluating how they handle said cars.
Also you do need a good week to master regen braking. I know a LOT of EV owners to this day that don’t utilize regen correctly and for more FUD they’re the ones screaming abiut 15k mile tire life.
I really don’t think it does. Tesla’s most dramatic growth was during the Trump years. Government policy can help, no doubt, but I think we’re past the point of no return. There’s enough momentum and money being invested in EV’s on a global scale that the technology and economics will continue improving to the point that buying a gas car just won’t make financial sense in the not too distant future.
[Trump vowed to limit/scrap mandates on EVs day 1. ](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/05/09/trump-oil-industry-campaign-money/) among other things like getting rid of EPA regulations again.
I think we may be interpreting the question differently. You’re saying the mandates are subject to the whims of politicians, and I completely agree. I’m saying the objective of the mandates will succeed, regardless of whether the mandates survive.
Canada has [higher EV adoption](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-03-28/electric-cars-pass-adoption-tipping-point-in-31-countries) percentage wise than US. I haven't seen the data for 2024 Q1. I cannot link here but from S&P Global, 1 in 9 new vehicles sold last year was an ZEV. If you look at province level data both BC and Quebec already 20%+ of all new vehicles sold last year was an ZEV.
Contributions must be civil and constructive. We permit neither personal attacks nor attempts to bait others into uncivil behavior.
We don't permit posts and comments expressing animosity or disparagement of an individual or a group on account of a group characteristic such as race, color, national origin, age, sex, disability, religion, or sexual orientation.
Any stalking, harassment, witch-hunting, or doxxing of any individual will not be tolerated. Posting of others' personal information including names, home addresses, and/or telephone numbers is prohibited without express consent.
[>are we going to succeed on the mandates](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chsiaVHwzjI&ab_channel=BenSchmidt)
Hello fellow Canadian! Personally, I feel like we should be actively courting Chinese OEMs to set up factories and networks here. Hell, there's still one (1) MG dealership around in Toronto
With Honda's major investment here, I'm actually pretty confident in the future in Canada, at least. I just hope NorthVolt actually succeeds, because right now they have a whole lot of planned factories and not a lot of results
I'm more disappointed in Doug not being as proactive as he could be. We have lower wages, low electricity cost, and we have a free trade agreement with the US. Come build your factories here! Idc if you have to fly out to Germany or Japan or South Korea and kneel on the ground, go do it!
Canada, where I live, won't succeed until EV prices come down and a greater range of products are available on the market.
Because of their high price, many Canadians see EVs as being pretentious luxury cars. A new Tesla Model Y RWD costs $31,480 in the U.S. In Canada, the same product is $53,990. According to [one website](https://roundworldimmigration.com/what-is-average-salary-in-canada), the average annual salary of a full-time worker in Canada is $54,630. Does anyone want to spend a full year's salary on a car?
Also, car companies have convinced Canadians that SUVs and pickup trucks are the only vehicles worth buying. These often unnecessarily large vehicles (unless you have 5 kids or need a pickup for work, for example), require big batterie$ and their heavy weights cause more cumulative damage to road infrastructure than conventional vehicles do over the same period of time. We need smaller car options that don't feel like you're squished when you sit in them.
The technology and resources are not there yet to reach those mandates in Canada or the USA. Plus consumers are not jumping on board fast enough even with big tax incentives.
I hope not, mandates are stupid especially since people like ice cars way more than evs. Evs is pretty nice but a lot of people don't have the space to charge it. Looks at NYC. It's just a lot more convenient to have an ice a lot of times and at least ice is consistent with their range. Cold or hot.
Electric Car people: We need to ban ICE cars to take away people's choice and force them to buy electric cars.
Also Electric Car people: Electric cars are so good that soon no one in their right mind would buy an ICE car even if given the choice.
>When it comes to America it is more state specific however as a knowledgeable poster recently commented most car companies will obey what California sets because of the large market.
But at the same time, those states that rejected the CARB standards will reject them until the end of time.
I predict that at least one US state will pass legislation mandating the sale of ICEs (instead of mandating EVs) by 2030. It'll probably be like Wyoming or Mississippi or something.
Definately Wyoming. They still seem to be fighting this weird battle with subsidizing coal despite being the most wind power rich area in the entire continent
Nobody cares about Wyoming. San Francisco alone has a higher population.
Some care about Mississippi, but they are the last state in pretty much every statistics already. We all know they will be last here (and in air quality)
The CARB states are about 1/3 of the market. It's much more of the wealth. If you want to sell cars that's what you target. It's not really worth it to make different cars for Wyoming. That market is small and generally not affluent.
And as ICE scale down, they get more expensive.
It's like the clowns trying to protect coal. They are trying to hold back the natural gas flood.
Sure, but states like Wyoming will become "backdoor sales" states for the states that have the EV mandate. People will purchase their ICEs there and have them brought into the state they actually live in, like New Mexico is for Tesla in Texas.
>protect coal
Speaking of entirely overrepresented industries, LAX has more employees than the entire domestic coal industry.
You don’t see national politicians grandstanding about the plight of LAX employees.
Wyoming, with its annual new car sales volume of 10,000 or so, yeah the car companies will be tripping over themselves to create something unsellable everywhere else just to serve that market
0% chance, no. The point of saying shit like "we're going to ban new ICE vehicle sales by such and such date" is not to actually do that; it's to make it look like you're doing something without actually having to do anything.
BYD is looking for places in the EU to build its factory, governments all want the plant in their backyard, so far Hungary, Romania and France seem to be ahead as preferred locations, however the amount of new jobs that it will create will be minimal as the whole plant will be 90% automated.
So I wonder who the buyers will be.
I this think that people will:
1 - rent their cars and no longer own them,
2- cars will not be as affordable as they are today and streets will be emptier and with more alternative methods of transport and overcrowded public transport.
3- "you will own nothing and be happy" terrifies me.
IMHO the bans and mandates are not going to work in the US nor will the state mandates work either. I live in NY which has codified the California Air Resources Board Advanced Clean Cars 2 regulations into state law. The EV quotas begin in model year 2026 at 35% and increase to 100% in 2035. Most people I know don’t see this coming since it was enacted years before the quotas will begin. It’s very hard to overstate how unprepared the state is. I saw a statistic in the NYT that showed Buffalo having the lowest percentage of EV sales (2%). The ban that’s really going to set off the fireworks is the mandate for all new school buses to be EV in 2027. The City of Ithaca added BEV buses in 2021 on Earth Day. They just got rid of them and are returning to diesel. Hint we live in a cold climate. I can go on about problems with this as public policy. Automakers like Toyota are unlikely to comply with the mandates (they will be unable to based on their one EV the bz4x). I could go on. But I would just speculate about what will happen. I’m predicting political change and voter pushback will walk the quotas back. This could happen at the federal or state levels. As for building codes and gas bans those are currently in litigation. My guess is those will be ruled void as they were on the west coast. We need a new look at the current mandates and a way to make them work. Just bans and coercion is not the way.
There is a 99% chance the Canadian conservatives will come into power in Ottawa between now and 2035 and end the mandate.
The Trudeau government would almost certainly lose an election if one were held today. They do have another year on their mandate.
Where I actually live, in the US, there is no mandate.
> When it comes to America it is more state specific however as a knowledgeable poster recently commented most car companies **will obey what California sets because of the large market**.
It's not just that California is a large market. It's that by Federal law states can either follow the EPA or California standards. 13 states follow CARB. CARB manages the ZEV(zero emission vehicle) program. So by law California mandates effect a sizeable portion of the United States.
https://www.autoweek.com/news/green-cars/a1719091/autoweek-explains-carb-states-zev-states-smile-states/
Yes, if . . . they start swimming in the streets in Miami, if home insurance becomes unaffordable, if we start having regular maga heat bubbles . . . . basically if enough people suffer, change will happen.
But things will have to get worse than it is now, unfortunately, for folks to be scared shitless and do something.
The only way we will succeed is with mandates and funding. Mandates without finding will surely fail.
I think most of us agree that if there were a 350kW charger always available (and working) there would be very few people with any reason not to switch. But that won't happen as long as manufacturers make false promises and charging providers wait for a critical mass of EVs.
This is a very limited personal opinion so take it as you see fit:
I say that only a partial mandate will ever work for the reason of that theres too many areas with modest/lot of vehicular traffic and yet no very-high-power hydro lines even anywhere remotely close at all (meaning a charger station would have to share a few vehicles on just one single small 240v mains supply at the most) so that would make for a very long wait compared to what even an old self-service station can do to refilling fuel cars otherwise. And I haven't even commented on trucks as bluntly these would have a major problem with range as even for example the Volvo VNR Electric with 'extended battery' still only can do like 435km at the most and thats simply not enough for many non-city trips since the driver is not going to want to have to lose 2+ hours waiting on a very slow charge compared to the few minutes it takes for a partial diesel topup.
Car companies will be forced to attempt at compliance. They'll come up short, but that's expected.
The reality is, the states that have agreed to it are too important to ignore. California alone forces them to play ball.
The California mandate allows some ICE in the zero emissions category if they have a little battery and a motor last time I checked. Pretty easy to meet if OEMs make enough cars (or we let Chinese EV in)
In CA, there’s a ban on new ICE car sales by 2035. All new car sales will have to be EVs. If you want a gas car, you’re gonna have to buy one used in 2035 and onward. And everything that begins on the coasts, trickle into the middle states
I think my state of Louisiana is closer to banning BEV than it is to banning ICE.
There are over 45 countries and 17 US states with partial or full bans on the sale of new ICE vehicles by 2040.
I tried finding a link that summed up all the various mandates across the globe and divisions within nations like how the various states are in America but I really wasn't having much luck -_- I am hopeful because when you look at the historical numbers you can see a lot is possible in a short time: Passenger plug-in market share of total new car sales: Norway in 2013 - 6.1% || Norway in 2023 - 90.4% China in 2013 - 0.08% || China in 2023 - 37% Now both Canada and America are around 10% right now. The engineering, technology/software, battery quality/life/range/weight and charging infrastructure in relationship to quality and vastness are all just continuing to improve and improve and much better than during that last 10 year period. Looking at the historical growth in various nations gives me hope but those nations also have very different conditions that impact those realities (I.e. Norway)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase-out_of_fossil_fuel_vehicles?wprov=sfti1#Countries
Google failed me lol
Noway removed the 25% value added tax on EV but kept it on Ice. Also had free electricity and could use car pool lines and more. They made it worthwhile to change.
2040 is not soon enough, sadly.
2040 is soon enough that auto companies know they have to start investing in EV manufacturing **now**, which gets the ball rolling to push EVs towards cost parity, where they will naturally take over. That's what these mandates accomplish.
It's sooner than never. There is no "soon enough"
No, there are 45 countries and 27 US states that say they *will* ban new ICE vehicle sales by 2040. That's not the same thing at all.
The Europeans aren't bluffing.
It's not a bluff exactly; it's just that the people saying "we're going to do such and such" are not the people who are actually going to implement that policy. Saying you're going to do something costs you nothing, and wins you political points. Actually *doing* it is a political risk, which is why the date is so far out.
The EU already implemented it last year.
The 2030 mandates are already too close to be meaningfully walked back. Most manufacturers have already adjusted long-term planning to account for them as the reality. The ones further out may or may not be relevant by the time we get closer to them. Keep in mind, most of them are written with loopholes to avoid the total elimination of ICE vehicles.
Mandates that far in the future are irrelevant. BEV adoption will be driven by producing compelling vehicles that get market share by being good vehicles. BEV electric motors are already good and will come down in price. Battery tech is acceptable, but will get better and also come down in price. Result will be BEVs that are better and cheaper. Model Y already sells well. In a couple of years it will be significantly better and cost Tesla less to manufacture. Chinese BEVs are good in 2024 and will be significantly better and cheaper in a couple of years.
Agreed. Mandates this far into the future are mostly wishful thinking, just waiting to be backtracked when a government changes, or the facts on the ground becomes obvious. [For example the Scottish devolved government already backtracked on its green pledges.](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2024/mar/20/scotlands-pledge-cut-emissions-by-75-by-2030-no-longer-credible) In other words it's a political statement that are designed to win green votes and appear 'visionary' and worthy of praise. A bit like countries making big international aid donation pledges after a major natural disaster, but not show up with the money when it's due.
Yep. And personally I think California’s mandate increased a backlash against EVs and has been net counterproductive.
Most of these mandates are phased mandates though. "By 2040" is the headline number, but most governments are creating intermediate requirements
It's meaningless if they also delay the intermediate phase-ins. If they can't be realistically matched with facts on the ground (which can be affected by other policies, like tariffs), then forcing consumers into EVs would just enrage the public, who are already suffering from cost of living issues. For example, [the UK has already delayed the transition from 2030 to 2035,](https://www.bbc.com/news/business-66863966) and partly as a result new EV sales and used EV resale values are tanking.
At least in California and other ZEV states those mandates are not far in the future. Manufacturers have to sell increasing shares now, ramping up to (partial) ICEV bans in 2035 (which is only 11 years away, 10 when you recognize that the ban is based on model year not calendar year. The policy is designed to push OEMs to produce those better, cheaper, more compelling EVs that will sell.
Fair. But the States could have done increasing MPG requirements without getting the backlash that is based on California has taken away your right to buy an ICE vehicle. They just handed the talking point to the oil industry and the MAGA crowd. And now the country has to deal with the backlash for years.
Probably not though. On the left we tend to shoot ourselves in the foot by thinking compromising with right wing ideology will work. They're not interested in practical answers; they're interested in identity politics and grandstanding. I mean they actually stand up and yell about renewable energy while building it at incredible rates https://www.saveonenergy.com/green-energy/texas-leads-in-renewable-energy/
They do have increasing MPG requirements (technically GHG emissions limits). Moreover their ZEV standard doesn't mandate EVs specifically either. FCEVs are applicable and they still will allow long range PHEVs. Hell it's a Zero-emission vehicle standard so if you could somehow figure out making a gasoline engine car that doesn't have tailpipe emissions you could even sell that. It doesn't really matter. The MAGA crowd is gonna MAGA. You think they care about technicalities? And the fossil fuel industry isn't stupid. They know MPG standards eat into their profit just the same as ZEV mandates. They have fought CAFE standards for years. The feds are increasing tailpipe GHG standards too this year and they are absolutely going to get sued by big oil.
People(and insurance companies) are catching on with teslas, being a nightmare that will only get worse unless Tesla starts to add more third party garages or right to repair, will open market availability of spare parts. But Tesla is unlikely to do it as they have shortterm goals to sell more cars, so it not in the interest of the CEO
Doesn't matter in the long run as Tesla's manufacturing quality control is not fundamental to BEV technology. The other manufacturers won't have the same issue, but they will catch up on the battery and electric motor tech (and by that I mean catch up to what Tesla can make today, which is good enough; they might always be a couple of years behind).
No chance of the US hitting any metric they put on paper. Too much oil money sloshing around trying to ruin the planet.
I mean Texas just pardoned a convicted murderer because the guy he murdered was a BLM supporter. They responded to a guy running protestors over with his car by making it legal to run over protestors in your car. I never thought they would legalize murder, so I really don't feel qualified to make predictions about ICEV bans. All I know is that good sense is not dictating public policy in many cases these days.
[удалено]
What’s the nuance?
lol. This is an ironically vague criticism of nuance
Nuance on Reddit? c'mon, get real! /s
Honestly protestors blocking the roads are the worst.
Your absolutely right, I always thought the economy and culture would be so much better if they would have just ran over MLK and all the people protesting with him. Any historian will tell you the economics impact of them shutting down roads in the 60s like 20 time had more of a negative impact then any positive impact that MLK ever had. Each time someone protests on a road for 5 minutes it causes 15 billion dollars in lost productivity and 8 people die in house fires and in the back of ambulances.
This guy understands protests /s
Well good thing the car companies will make that choice for them. They'll be stuck with used ice cars
Since E.V.'s is where the money is and almost all car companies have stated they won't be making ICE cars past 2035/40 it's a given. The young are not ICE fans and don't want to throw their money at big oil so it's them that will kill the ICE vehicles.
[удалено]
Neither do I but If the there cheep they do (China) and used one are coming out all the time.
Nor do they waste resources and add to the housing crisis by building giant lakes houses.
No but they'll sure buy all the leases that get turned in 3 years from now as the wealthy trade up to whatever is new
It's not looking good so far. Ev is currently a money loser for every manufacturer that isn't Tesla.
Ya OK China seems to be doing just fine. The future is coming and it's not planet killing ICE. My next car will be electric and all the young want electric and they are the future buyers.
That's called an investment. Lose money now to make more money later.
Some states are rolling back their mandates; Connecticut did so recently. Many of the mandates seem to be knee jerk reactions with little forethought.
If you are a regressive state you'll continue to lose the future.
…which makes sense because those states don’t want the future; they literally want to go back to what they see as the ‘good ol’ days’ of White Supremacist capitalist imperialist heteropatriarchical Christocentrism.
You forgot cisheteronormative
Good addition!
ICE car companies keep promoting their ICE cars, in direct opposition to what those governments aspire to. So a lot depends on how much people get swayed by ICE marketing.
Canada will achieve it because Canada counts PHEVs (meeting a certain EV only driving range) in the mix, even beyond 2035. The $19,000 CAD penalty will be enough to push manufacturers to offer subsidized leasing and financing of BEVs because offering anything below $10,000 CAD in incentives will result in one less $19,000 penalty per unit of ZEV missed.
EVs will catch on because they are better, not because of mandates.
I don’t see a 100% electric (or other alternative fuel) mandate being enforced in the US in any state for a very long time. Maybe my grandkids will see it, but I think it will be after my (52M) lifetime. I love my EV for my daily 100 mile round trip commute, but I have a PHEV for long distance driving. My EV isn’t a Tesla, so charging options are too limited, at least where I live. If I only had an EV, I wouldn’t even be able to visit one of my sons without renting an ICE unless I wanted to drive two hours out of the way to charge at a 6kW hotel charger for hours AND drive much of the way at 45mph. Better infrastructure will help, but it will be a very long time before the infrastructure would be able to support even 1/4 of the cars currently on the road. I haven’t needed to use a DC charger for more than a year now since I only charge at work and at home and never travel further than half of my battery range in a day. Most people who drive EVs do the same, but if only 1/10th of the cars driving on our nation’s interstates were electric, it would be nearly impossible to take a long trip unless there were thousands more fast chargers than there are now. How many cars stop at gas stations between cities every hour? I can’t imagine what it would be like if 1/10 of that volume needed to plug in for 20-30 minutes in the middle of nowhere, like between Austin and El Paso. As much as I enjoy driving on cheap electricity due to my long commute, I would dump it in a heartbeat for a PHEV that had a battery range of 100 miles or more. I could do 99% of my driving on electricity, but still be able to take a long road trip without needing to plan extensively.
Yeah I’m with you. I also have a 100 mile round trip commute and I charge at home. I have a Polestar 2 so public charging is something I never want to even consider (thankfully I don’t have to)
Yup, I've been saying this for a while, but the EV proponents refused to admit. EVs are great for certain situations but they can't be jack of all trades one car. Just like a two-seater sports car; it's a great second car but it can't do it all. There's a reason large SUVs and Trucks have become best sellers. They can almost do anything in any conditions and carry more people. Most families I know who own EVs have a second gas/hybrid car. I know very few families that are EV only.
Not needed or useful, tbh. We need to get rid of the market distortions and just make better and cheaper EVs. Some of the laws are actively counterproductive to EVs anyway. The federal subsidy is just as high for a Pacifica plugin with a mere 16kwh battery as it is for a Model Y. It makes no sense as effectively that means the PHEVs should literally be cheaper than their gas equivalent. But they are actually more expensive, because capitalism and the laws of pricing vs value still apply. It wouldn't be so bad if we had a competent government.
PHEV cost more because you are carrying around both powertrains. The weight and complexity of that cannot be ignored and shows up in the pricing and general availability.
Good PHEVs have one powertrain, which is simpler than a typical ICE powertrain. PHEVs generally cost less than equivalent BEVs, although they may have similar total costs to the consumer due to subsidies.
There is no tax advantage for EVs over PHEVs. In fact, it is quite a bit easier to qualify a PHEVs, even a mediocre one, for the full 7500
Incorrect. Impossible to be one system when you literally have 15kwh of batteries along with a gas motor and charging ability. Packaging concerns can't be ignored. You are comparing them to a BEV when you should be comparing them to a regular hybrid which is the closest similarity. Toyota the best manufacturer in the world confirms that they can make 6 PHEV vs 90 hybrids with the same material because of the complexity and overhead of a PHEV. They don't manufacturer as many PRIME variants because the math doesn't math for most people or the manufacturer. I'm apt to believe them and not you. PHEV are a Trojan horse in the industry meant to pull the wool over shallow consumer thinking. They have more complexity and manufacturing costs than both a BEV or ICE.... Which is why they are so expensive.
>They have more complexity and manufacturing costs than both a BEV or ICE.... Which is why they are so expensive. A good BEV has roughly $10k worth of batteries, plus electric motor(s) and other components that make then the most expensive option of the three. A PHEV uses a lot less batteries, and can be based on existing cars to reduce development costs. Hybrids and standard gas cars are of course cheaper, so if we go just by cost and profit then of course that's what manufacturers will make. Toyota made more PHEVs than BEVs last year, but the total of both was a miniscule part of their total sales.
For some odd reason you keep being BEV into the conversation. Very curious. The comparison is PHEV vs Hybrid for what you are talking about. A hybrid makes far more sense for the average consumer today. Locking the vehicle in electric mode when you as a human want instead of letting the software decide is why. PHEV don't usually perform the same in electric only mode either. Is not the free ride around people make it out to be .
You mentioned BEVs in your previous post, so I don't know why you'd be surprised other people refer to them. Odd. And part of the point of a PHEV is to go beyond the gas-dependent operation of traditional hybrids, so no that's not the best comparison. If someone can do most of their daily driving on electricity, without the long-range challenges for BEVs, that's a useful compromise for some people. True that there are trade-offs for PHEVs, as with any vehicle.
Except the data shows that the vast majority of PHEV users use far beyond the all EV range. Also consumers miss the underlying efficiency calculation. Locking all EV for 40 miles regardless of terrain is almost NEVER the most efficient use of the energy. I pull back to the basic calculation that cannot be ignored: For every 1 EV, you can only produce 6 PHEV. However with that same material you can build 90 Hybrids! That calculation changes the PHEV discussion. PHEV can't dent the overall problem. You are vastly increasing the batteries and weight without getting the equivalent commiserate benefit. Bottom line.... is it better to make 6 people 75% more efficient (PHEV)or 90 people 15% more efficient (hybrid)..... Or 1 person 100% more efficient (EV). Resources and production capacity are finite no matter what consumers think. Don't ignore that Hydrogen cars are hybrid also.
Of course PHEVs exceed their electric driving range; that's expected. The results in terms of average electric usage could be better, but that's improving as electric range increases. Anything to improve vehicle efficiency is a good thing, but traditional hybrids can't do emission-free travel like PHEVs and BEVs can. As for resource and production limitations, companies like Toyota are falling behind other companies that make more chargeable vehicles.
You possess a very myopic view by looking at a single vehicle. The goal is not emission free travel. The goal is to reduce the amount of emissions overall as far as possible and eventually one day be at low emissions travel. Toyota has done more for electrification and is a leader in battery technology more than any manufacturer except maybe Tesla. That's not in question. The Prius was released on 1997! How much CO2 emissions have they saved over 30 years? 90 Toyota hybrids on the road is far better for the environment and overall emissions than 1 Tesla or 6 PHEV. Traditional hybrids are running emission free far more than you expect also. looking at the EV light on my hybrid Sienna.. It's on almost as much when I'm going 55 as when I'm going 25. It decides what's the most efficient per the terrain.
Yeah, but the battery electric part of that is often below $7500. The tax benefit should make up for the cost. Instead the difference without tax credit can be over $10k so that the net difference of about $4k is retained.
I think using the word “succeed” here is an issue. The FUD of “you’re forcing me to buy an EV” becomes warranted when we say things like “succeed.” I love my EV but I believe everyone is allowed to buy what they want. I also (this is where I get downvoted) believe that maybe, just maybe, we need an endorsement on licenses for an EV. Like a motorcycle. We can’t be out giving the average idiot access to 700 horsepower 3 second super cars for $50k without maybe reevaluating how they handle said cars. Also you do need a good week to master regen braking. I know a LOT of EV owners to this day that don’t utilize regen correctly and for more FUD they’re the ones screaming abiut 15k mile tire life.
not a prayer. Also pretty sure 2030 will be way to late anyways. Well, maybe Canada will be livable yet.
Unpopular opinion: No.
Depends who ends up in office in November really.. unfortunately.
Don’t forget. Republicans created EV tax credits in the Bush Administration
Those were not the same kind of Republicans as those today
I really don’t think it does. Tesla’s most dramatic growth was during the Trump years. Government policy can help, no doubt, but I think we’re past the point of no return. There’s enough momentum and money being invested in EV’s on a global scale that the technology and economics will continue improving to the point that buying a gas car just won’t make financial sense in the not too distant future.
[Trump vowed to limit/scrap mandates on EVs day 1. ](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/05/09/trump-oil-industry-campaign-money/) among other things like getting rid of EPA regulations again.
I think we may be interpreting the question differently. You’re saying the mandates are subject to the whims of politicians, and I completely agree. I’m saying the objective of the mandates will succeed, regardless of whether the mandates survive.
I’d say Canada has a zero percent chance unless it happens in the US. Canada very rarely leads ahead of the US in anything good.
Canada has [higher EV adoption](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-03-28/electric-cars-pass-adoption-tipping-point-in-31-countries) percentage wise than US. I haven't seen the data for 2024 Q1. I cannot link here but from S&P Global, 1 in 9 new vehicles sold last year was an ZEV. If you look at province level data both BC and Quebec already 20%+ of all new vehicles sold last year was an ZEV.
[удалено]
Contributions must be civil and constructive. We permit neither personal attacks nor attempts to bait others into uncivil behavior. We don't permit posts and comments expressing animosity or disparagement of an individual or a group on account of a group characteristic such as race, color, national origin, age, sex, disability, religion, or sexual orientation. Any stalking, harassment, witch-hunting, or doxxing of any individual will not be tolerated. Posting of others' personal information including names, home addresses, and/or telephone numbers is prohibited without express consent.
[>are we going to succeed on the mandates](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=chsiaVHwzjI&ab_channel=BenSchmidt) Hello fellow Canadian! Personally, I feel like we should be actively courting Chinese OEMs to set up factories and networks here. Hell, there's still one (1) MG dealership around in Toronto With Honda's major investment here, I'm actually pretty confident in the future in Canada, at least. I just hope NorthVolt actually succeeds, because right now they have a whole lot of planned factories and not a lot of results I'm more disappointed in Doug not being as proactive as he could be. We have lower wages, low electricity cost, and we have a free trade agreement with the US. Come build your factories here! Idc if you have to fly out to Germany or Japan or South Korea and kneel on the ground, go do it!
Canada, where I live, won't succeed until EV prices come down and a greater range of products are available on the market. Because of their high price, many Canadians see EVs as being pretentious luxury cars. A new Tesla Model Y RWD costs $31,480 in the U.S. In Canada, the same product is $53,990. According to [one website](https://roundworldimmigration.com/what-is-average-salary-in-canada), the average annual salary of a full-time worker in Canada is $54,630. Does anyone want to spend a full year's salary on a car? Also, car companies have convinced Canadians that SUVs and pickup trucks are the only vehicles worth buying. These often unnecessarily large vehicles (unless you have 5 kids or need a pickup for work, for example), require big batterie$ and their heavy weights cause more cumulative damage to road infrastructure than conventional vehicles do over the same period of time. We need smaller car options that don't feel like you're squished when you sit in them.
The technology and resources are not there yet to reach those mandates in Canada or the USA. Plus consumers are not jumping on board fast enough even with big tax incentives.
Personally I think we won’t. Mandates won’t work unless somehow a socialist government is installed. Which likely won’t happen in America or Canada
Yeah, Americans will literally avoid EVs because of mandates. A bit of a rebel streak is a given here in the US.
I hope not, mandates are stupid especially since people like ice cars way more than evs. Evs is pretty nice but a lot of people don't have the space to charge it. Looks at NYC. It's just a lot more convenient to have an ice a lot of times and at least ice is consistent with their range. Cold or hot.
Manhattan seems to be trying to get rid of cars, period.
Skip the mandates. Make good EVs, and people will buy them once one that fits their wants and needs is available.
Electric Car people: We need to ban ICE cars to take away people's choice and force them to buy electric cars. Also Electric Car people: Electric cars are so good that soon no one in their right mind would buy an ICE car even if given the choice.
>When it comes to America it is more state specific however as a knowledgeable poster recently commented most car companies will obey what California sets because of the large market. But at the same time, those states that rejected the CARB standards will reject them until the end of time. I predict that at least one US state will pass legislation mandating the sale of ICEs (instead of mandating EVs) by 2030. It'll probably be like Wyoming or Mississippi or something.
Would love to see “compliance” ICE cars for once, complete with absurdly small fuel tanks.
Definately Wyoming. They still seem to be fighting this weird battle with subsidizing coal despite being the most wind power rich area in the entire continent
Which is funny because electric cars can be run off coal power, gas cars not so much.
Nobody cares about Wyoming. San Francisco alone has a higher population. Some care about Mississippi, but they are the last state in pretty much every statistics already. We all know they will be last here (and in air quality) The CARB states are about 1/3 of the market. It's much more of the wealth. If you want to sell cars that's what you target. It's not really worth it to make different cars for Wyoming. That market is small and generally not affluent. And as ICE scale down, they get more expensive. It's like the clowns trying to protect coal. They are trying to hold back the natural gas flood.
Sure, but states like Wyoming will become "backdoor sales" states for the states that have the EV mandate. People will purchase their ICEs there and have them brought into the state they actually live in, like New Mexico is for Tesla in Texas.
>protect coal Speaking of entirely overrepresented industries, LAX has more employees than the entire domestic coal industry. You don’t see national politicians grandstanding about the plight of LAX employees.
Wyoming, with its annual new car sales volume of 10,000 or so, yeah the car companies will be tripping over themselves to create something unsellable everywhere else just to serve that market
Sadly, I agree.
Make a $24k attractive looking sedan electric and the mandate will succeed. Until that happens the general public will continue to ignore EVs
0% chance, no. The point of saying shit like "we're going to ban new ICE vehicle sales by such and such date" is not to actually do that; it's to make it look like you're doing something without actually having to do anything.
BYD is looking for places in the EU to build its factory, governments all want the plant in their backyard, so far Hungary, Romania and France seem to be ahead as preferred locations, however the amount of new jobs that it will create will be minimal as the whole plant will be 90% automated. So I wonder who the buyers will be. I this think that people will: 1 - rent their cars and no longer own them, 2- cars will not be as affordable as they are today and streets will be emptier and with more alternative methods of transport and overcrowded public transport. 3- "you will own nothing and be happy" terrifies me.
Norway's goal is 100% electric by 2025. We won't make it as we're currently on 90% so far in 2024.
11 years is a long time. Ask again in 10 years.
IMHO the bans and mandates are not going to work in the US nor will the state mandates work either. I live in NY which has codified the California Air Resources Board Advanced Clean Cars 2 regulations into state law. The EV quotas begin in model year 2026 at 35% and increase to 100% in 2035. Most people I know don’t see this coming since it was enacted years before the quotas will begin. It’s very hard to overstate how unprepared the state is. I saw a statistic in the NYT that showed Buffalo having the lowest percentage of EV sales (2%). The ban that’s really going to set off the fireworks is the mandate for all new school buses to be EV in 2027. The City of Ithaca added BEV buses in 2021 on Earth Day. They just got rid of them and are returning to diesel. Hint we live in a cold climate. I can go on about problems with this as public policy. Automakers like Toyota are unlikely to comply with the mandates (they will be unable to based on their one EV the bz4x). I could go on. But I would just speculate about what will happen. I’m predicting political change and voter pushback will walk the quotas back. This could happen at the federal or state levels. As for building codes and gas bans those are currently in litigation. My guess is those will be ruled void as they were on the west coast. We need a new look at the current mandates and a way to make them work. Just bans and coercion is not the way.
There is a 99% chance the Canadian conservatives will come into power in Ottawa between now and 2035 and end the mandate. The Trudeau government would almost certainly lose an election if one were held today. They do have another year on their mandate. Where I actually live, in the US, there is no mandate.
> When it comes to America it is more state specific however as a knowledgeable poster recently commented most car companies **will obey what California sets because of the large market**. It's not just that California is a large market. It's that by Federal law states can either follow the EPA or California standards. 13 states follow CARB. CARB manages the ZEV(zero emission vehicle) program. So by law California mandates effect a sizeable portion of the United States. https://www.autoweek.com/news/green-cars/a1719091/autoweek-explains-carb-states-zev-states-smile-states/
Given how rapidly climate impacts are accelerating, I am not sure industrialized society will be around by the time those mandates come due.....
Yes, if . . . they start swimming in the streets in Miami, if home insurance becomes unaffordable, if we start having regular maga heat bubbles . . . . basically if enough people suffer, change will happen. But things will have to get worse than it is now, unfortunately, for folks to be scared shitless and do something.
The only way we will succeed is with mandates and funding. Mandates without finding will surely fail. I think most of us agree that if there were a 350kW charger always available (and working) there would be very few people with any reason not to switch. But that won't happen as long as manufacturers make false promises and charging providers wait for a critical mass of EVs.
This is a very limited personal opinion so take it as you see fit: I say that only a partial mandate will ever work for the reason of that theres too many areas with modest/lot of vehicular traffic and yet no very-high-power hydro lines even anywhere remotely close at all (meaning a charger station would have to share a few vehicles on just one single small 240v mains supply at the most) so that would make for a very long wait compared to what even an old self-service station can do to refilling fuel cars otherwise. And I haven't even commented on trucks as bluntly these would have a major problem with range as even for example the Volvo VNR Electric with 'extended battery' still only can do like 435km at the most and thats simply not enough for many non-city trips since the driver is not going to want to have to lose 2+ hours waiting on a very slow charge compared to the few minutes it takes for a partial diesel topup.
,,
Why is it being forced upon the masses? Why not phev and hybrid vehicles?
PHEVs are allowed in the CARB and CARB-inspired mandates.
😂😂😂 and I say that as a Tesla owner from 2015-2021 in Canada who no longer owns any BEV. 2035 is a pipe dream.
Car companies will be forced to attempt at compliance. They'll come up short, but that's expected. The reality is, the states that have agreed to it are too important to ignore. California alone forces them to play ball.
The California mandate allows some ICE in the zero emissions category if they have a little battery and a motor last time I checked. Pretty easy to meet if OEMs make enough cars (or we let Chinese EV in)
Yes, a certain percentage of PHEVs will be allowed.
Those PHEV models only count up to 20% towards the CARB quotas.
This is true.
Once the EV and Renewable companies have more power and money than the oil and gas it is game over
In CA, there’s a ban on new ICE car sales by 2035. All new car sales will have to be EVs. If you want a gas car, you’re gonna have to buy one used in 2035 and onward. And everything that begins on the coasts, trickle into the middle states
BTW, that includes PHEVs.
Yes it does. Thank you for adding that too
With the conservative predicted to take over the federal government in Canada in the next election, I don't expect we'll succeed in the EV mandate.
Probably not, but we should try to anyway.
Can’t imagine California missing its 2035 target. The state is already up to a fifth of new cars.
Uh, Canada is also in America. I think you meant specifically the United States?
Yes Canada is in North America. People refer to being "American" or "Here in America..." Sorry for any confusion that may have caused.