The death of gas vehicles?
Here is an interesting article.
It makes some good points, but mostly a lot of bad points. In fact, the worst point is the one which wraps it up. If haven't read the article, it basically argues that the proof that EV's aren't taking over is because governments feeling like they need to ban sales to phase out gas vehicles. It is compared to horses dying off as a mode of transit without any government intervention.
This last bit is utterly stupid. Firstly... horses haven't died off as a means of transit. And transit was not their only purpose, and horses still serve many of those auxiliary purposes today. But, that is secondary. Horses didn't have powerful companies lobbying for them or throngs of people employed by them.
At present, electric vehicle manufacturers are non-existent, with the exception of Tesla. Yes, other companies DO make EVs. But they make FAR MORE of their money (and more importantly, their profits) from traditional combustion engines. They also have the oil companies lobbying with them.
Had horse breeding been the heart and soul of a country and a major source of employment and lobbying funds, I suspect you'd have a very different looking history book. Horse lobbyists would protest the development of new roads. Cars are noisy and dangerous after all. Adding more roads increases danger to public safety. It kills off arable land. And so on and so forth. There are plenty of legitimate arguments one could put up against infrastructure necessary for cars if the horses has people to protect them and the jobs they create. Cars themselves are a bigger polluter than horses. More fuel for fire.
At present, it seems natural that EVs will take over the combustion engine. But all those highly invested in the petroleum industry want to see that change happen as slowly as possible. In the US, they might push the President to nominate into positions, people who have a stake in fossil fuels or are climate change skeptics. They will lobby on the front that we know how many jobs there are in combustion engines, but that EVs are an unknown and many will lose jobs. They will argue against funding to increase infrastructure required by EVs, like charging stations or making solar easier to access.
Frankly, the 2040 date set by France and the UK may be moot. Perhaps automakers will meet it long before then. Maybe they will meet it only because they are forced. Or maybe they will fail and the laws will be repealed.
Right now, the impediments to the EV are substantial. Batteries still cost too much. And demand still outstrips supply. If something doesn't change, we could very well see 2040 roll around, but be in a place where it simply isn't possible to deliver enough batteries to sate the demand created by the ban. And whether automakers fall short for trying, or on purpose... the laws will break at that point in time. Of course, if the timeline is feasible. There will probably end up being some racing towards and achieving the goal fast enough to back others into a corner.
As you can see above. I'm not trying, necessarily to argue against the original articles conclusions. It is vaporware. We don't know what will happen. What I do feel I can safely say is that no one loves paying for gas. It is idiotic to assume that if the cost of EVs got competitive and national infrastructure improved that gas vehicles wouldn't go the way of the horses. It seems like a no brainer that it would. The only real question is if and when EVs will hit such a mark.
What I am arguing against is the totally flawed comparison. Oh and here is some even more fun comparison. Cost of a Ford in the early years vs the cost of a horse around the same time. Note, as production ramped, a car would have cost nearly the same as a horse. And, over time it dropped to even less than the cost of a horse. I doubt, in those early years that cars were seen any differently from a Tesla. But once they became as expensive or less expensive than a horse, ... well just look at that. Right in line with the cost chart, as they got more affordable, they got more pervasive.
In other words... more than likely, unless you're sadist and love paying for a highly variable cost energy source like gasoline or are a classic car buff, the idea of an EV is likely one you're just waiting for the economical pieces to fall in place on. The government bans may or may not promote those circumstances. We really don't know when or if EVs will be able to touch gas vehicles in terms of cost.
The new Tesla doesn't even really do it. Firstly, the base model is sold at a loss and is still (before tax breaks, incentives, etc...) 2-3 times more expensive than the cheapest car out there. It's price tag does put it into a price range where people are regularly buying vehicles though.
Clearly, we're not yet at a point where we can sound the alarm that the gas car industry will die.
It makes some good points, but mostly a lot of bad points. In fact, the worst point is the one which wraps it up. If haven't read the article, it basically argues that the proof that EV's aren't taking over is because governments feeling like they need to ban sales to phase out gas vehicles. It is compared to horses dying off as a mode of transit without any government intervention.
This last bit is utterly stupid. Firstly... horses haven't died off as a means of transit. And transit was not their only purpose, and horses still serve many of those auxiliary purposes today. But, that is secondary. Horses didn't have powerful companies lobbying for them or throngs of people employed by them.
At present, electric vehicle manufacturers are non-existent, with the exception of Tesla. Yes, other companies DO make EVs. But they make FAR MORE of their money (and more importantly, their profits) from traditional combustion engines. They also have the oil companies lobbying with them.
Had horse breeding been the heart and soul of a country and a major source of employment and lobbying funds, I suspect you'd have a very different looking history book. Horse lobbyists would protest the development of new roads. Cars are noisy and dangerous after all. Adding more roads increases danger to public safety. It kills off arable land. And so on and so forth. There are plenty of legitimate arguments one could put up against infrastructure necessary for cars if the horses has people to protect them and the jobs they create. Cars themselves are a bigger polluter than horses. More fuel for fire.
At present, it seems natural that EVs will take over the combustion engine. But all those highly invested in the petroleum industry want to see that change happen as slowly as possible. In the US, they might push the President to nominate into positions, people who have a stake in fossil fuels or are climate change skeptics. They will lobby on the front that we know how many jobs there are in combustion engines, but that EVs are an unknown and many will lose jobs. They will argue against funding to increase infrastructure required by EVs, like charging stations or making solar easier to access.
Frankly, the 2040 date set by France and the UK may be moot. Perhaps automakers will meet it long before then. Maybe they will meet it only because they are forced. Or maybe they will fail and the laws will be repealed.
Right now, the impediments to the EV are substantial. Batteries still cost too much. And demand still outstrips supply. If something doesn't change, we could very well see 2040 roll around, but be in a place where it simply isn't possible to deliver enough batteries to sate the demand created by the ban. And whether automakers fall short for trying, or on purpose... the laws will break at that point in time. Of course, if the timeline is feasible. There will probably end up being some racing towards and achieving the goal fast enough to back others into a corner.
As you can see above. I'm not trying, necessarily to argue against the original articles conclusions. It is vaporware. We don't know what will happen. What I do feel I can safely say is that no one loves paying for gas. It is idiotic to assume that if the cost of EVs got competitive and national infrastructure improved that gas vehicles wouldn't go the way of the horses. It seems like a no brainer that it would. The only real question is if and when EVs will hit such a mark.
What I am arguing against is the totally flawed comparison. Oh and here is some even more fun comparison. Cost of a Ford in the early years vs the cost of a horse around the same time. Note, as production ramped, a car would have cost nearly the same as a horse. And, over time it dropped to even less than the cost of a horse. I doubt, in those early years that cars were seen any differently from a Tesla. But once they became as expensive or less expensive than a horse, ... well just look at that. Right in line with the cost chart, as they got more affordable, they got more pervasive.
In other words... more than likely, unless you're sadist and love paying for a highly variable cost energy source like gasoline or are a classic car buff, the idea of an EV is likely one you're just waiting for the economical pieces to fall in place on. The government bans may or may not promote those circumstances. We really don't know when or if EVs will be able to touch gas vehicles in terms of cost.
The new Tesla doesn't even really do it. Firstly, the base model is sold at a loss and is still (before tax breaks, incentives, etc...) 2-3 times more expensive than the cheapest car out there. It's price tag does put it into a price range where people are regularly buying vehicles though.
Clearly, we're not yet at a point where we can sound the alarm that the gas car industry will die.
Comments
Post a Comment