America Invested in EV Battery Plants. Now They May Be Stranded. (msn.com) 103
An anonymous reader shared this report from the Washington Post:
Over the past three years, companies have invested tens of billions of dollars toward making electric vehicles in the United States, buoyed by tax incentives aimed at helping American businesses compete with China. Now, those companies are facing a strange problem: too much manufacturing capacity, not enough demand.
As sales of electric vehicles slow and congressional Republicans take aim at EV tax credits and incentives, the United States is slated to have more battery and EV manufacturing than it needs, according to a report released Wednesday by the Rhodium Group, a research firm. That could leave factories — many of which are already operating or under construction — stranded if car sales continue to slump. "The rug is being pulled out from under these manufacturers," said Hannah Pitt, a director in Rhodium's energy and climate practice...
After [America's 2022 climate bill], battery investment in the U.S. skyrocketed. Companies went from investing about $1 billion per quarter in 2022 to $11 billion per quarter in 2024. Most of that battery investment went to red states, including in the South's "Battery Belt," where manufacturers were drawn to inexpensive land and a nonunionized workforce. Now, however, that battery boom is teetering. In the first three months of 2025, companies canceled $6 billion in battery manufacturing — a record. EV sales have slowed...
According to the new report, the United States has almost enough battery capacity announced or under development to meet demand all the way to 2030 if EV sales continue to slump. That might sound like a good thing — but if EV sales drop further, it means companies will be left with factories they won't be able to use. At the same time, China has excess battery capacity. The country has enough manufacturing to meet the entire world's demand for batteries — and may be looking to off-load them onto other markets... And if the incentives for using U.S.-made batteries disappear, the nation's manufacturers would be left high and dry.
As sales of electric vehicles slow and congressional Republicans take aim at EV tax credits and incentives, the United States is slated to have more battery and EV manufacturing than it needs, according to a report released Wednesday by the Rhodium Group, a research firm. That could leave factories — many of which are already operating or under construction — stranded if car sales continue to slump. "The rug is being pulled out from under these manufacturers," said Hannah Pitt, a director in Rhodium's energy and climate practice...
After [America's 2022 climate bill], battery investment in the U.S. skyrocketed. Companies went from investing about $1 billion per quarter in 2022 to $11 billion per quarter in 2024. Most of that battery investment went to red states, including in the South's "Battery Belt," where manufacturers were drawn to inexpensive land and a nonunionized workforce. Now, however, that battery boom is teetering. In the first three months of 2025, companies canceled $6 billion in battery manufacturing — a record. EV sales have slowed...
According to the new report, the United States has almost enough battery capacity announced or under development to meet demand all the way to 2030 if EV sales continue to slump. That might sound like a good thing — but if EV sales drop further, it means companies will be left with factories they won't be able to use. At the same time, China has excess battery capacity. The country has enough manufacturing to meet the entire world's demand for batteries — and may be looking to off-load them onto other markets... And if the incentives for using U.S.-made batteries disappear, the nation's manufacturers would be left high and dry.
No more U.S. built cars for me (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
That's how many Americans felt when GM et. al. moved production to Canada so they started buying e.g. Toyotas made in e.g. Indiana instead.
You are correct that people will vote with their wallet. To me it makes sense for Canadians to buy from one of the major Canadian automobile manufacturers, and not just for tariff reasons.
Re: (Score:3)
...and not just for tariff reasons.
Definitely. The repeated demands that they give up their sovereignty are a pretty good motivator too.
Re: (Score:2)
What major Canadian automobile manufacturers are these? I don't know of any currently, other than a couple of very niche specialty companies.
Personally I'd like to see Canada reduce tariffs just a little bit on Chinese automobiles. Even 50% would probably be reasonable. Also Canada really needs to change the safety regs to allow cars that meet European safety rules (arguably stricter than ours in many cases) into Canada. Right now silly things keep them out because we've tried for so many years to keep r
Re: (Score:2)
Right now silly things keep them out
From what I read, apart from technical matters, what kept some European sellers out of North America is that they were selling so few cars it was not worth. Renault was selling 4,000 cars a year in USA when it exited North America (though trigger for the exit in this case was assassination of the CEO Georges Besse in 1986). Keeping a network of dealers and availability of parts in Canada would be costly and only worth if they can sell many cars, as we are talking about cheap cars to get going with limited m
Canadian-built cars [Re:No more U.S. built car...] (Score:3)
What major Canadian automobile manufacturers are these? I don't know of any currently, other than a couple of very niche specialty companies.
Offhand, Honda Civic, Toyota RAV4, Chrysler Pacifica, Dodge Charger, Chevy Silverado, Ford Edge.
I'm sure a google search would show more. Or Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:1)
Re:No more U.S. built cars for me (Score:4, Insightful)
At some point economics win over politics. I live in a rural area of Alberta and I'm very much interested in BEVs. Of course part of that is because I've made a major investment in solar, and I could easily charge up a BEV with my excess solar power for "free." Of course most people won't be in this position. My neighbor who farms drives mostly EVs now. Ideal for on-farm use as a gasoline engine putting around the farm is lucky to get 10 mpg. Weight is a big downside to EVs, at least on the farm driving through mud. If my wife commuted into town every day for work, I would totally buy one.
I find it hilarious how many people are willing to decide against something that is quite appealing and they would probably be in favor of just because a Liberal politician happens to be in favor of it. So bizarre and self-defeating.
Re: (Score:2)
Being a contrariant is even more ridiculous, though.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm an American, and my next car is still going to be an EV... and almost certainly one made by a non-American company.
Because American cars are sucking again, just like the old days.
Probably not a problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Supposedly EV sales are likely to be 25% higher than last year: https://about.bnef.com/insight... [bnef.com]
Tesla, sure, is facing (self inflicted) problems, but they're no longer the only EV maker in town with any degree of respect. And of course there's now serious efforts being made to produce low cost EVs that will appeal to Americans such as the $20,000 truck that's been mentioned a few times here.
Plus... if we're looking at something that seriously affects the economy of Southern states, it doesn't matter how much culture war bullshit Trump spews, the Republicans will make sure there's support of some kind, even if it's the usual "lessening regulations" crap that doesn't really help anyone long term.
And then there's the question of whether EVs are the only audience for large batteries anyway. As someone living in Florida, I'd love a 5 day battery back-up for my house. Tesla's PowerWalls alas are too expensive for that, but more battery factories should result in the price coming down.
Re: (Score:3)
I wish I had mod points to mod your post UP since you seem to be the only rational poster so far in this thread.
The rest of the posters in this thread are either "off their meds" or they are behaving like somebody killed their goldfish.
Re: (Score:2)
while Teslas are still the most common EVs I see in the quite large metro area where i live, the competition has been growing QUICKLY in the past year.
when i moved into this area at the start of CoVID, it was easily 20-1 in Tesla's favor.
now it's more like 5-1 or worse
Re:Probably not a problem (Score:4, Interesting)
Supposedly EV sales are likely to be 25% higher than last year: https://about.bnef.com/insight [bnef.com]... [bnef.com]
That is world wide. Not sure that matters much to battery manufacturers in the United States. China is demonstrating that electric car adoption isn't really a problem when you produce affordable electric cars. Electric cars are almost all luxury models in the US. At least based on their price.
We have tax breaks for people to buy electric cars, but with depreciation at 15% to 35% in the first year for any new car, that incentive isn't really that big relative to the extra cost of buying a car new. If we focused instead on raising the cost of new ICE vehicles we would have much larger impact. But there is no money in that.
Re: (Score:2)
As someone living in Florida, I'd love a 5 day battery back-up for my house.
The only way the economics of that works out is if the batteries happen to be in your EV and you don't mind your car being tethered to your home during the duration of a power outage.
I've had people ask me if I've ever considered rigging up some inverter contraption so I could power a few things in my house using my Bolt (which being an older model of EV, doesn't have a vehicle-to-load feature). My answer has always been the same: The Bolt works great for driving to the gas station, to get gas for my porta
Re: (Score:2)
The biggest thing that will hold EV adoption back will be availability of convenient charging for people that cannot, for one reason or another, charge at home over night. We need a whole lot more public chargers all over. This cost money though. A lot.
If more people had a garage for their car, then I'm sure EVs would be much more popular. Oh, and electricity in California is super expensive, to the point where my 50mpg hybrid will be better then EV until gas crosses about $6.50. So, while California probab
Late Stage capitalism (Score:2)
Re:Late Stage capitalism (Score:4, Interesting)
Investment in batteries is literally investing in energy, same as oil or gas or wind or anything else, this shouldn't be a political fiefdom more than one group wants to make it one because it can be a divisive wedge issue.
Seriously, there is only political reasoning for conservatives to have been so against renewable energy production especially in terms of developing it as a domestic industry, in every other aspect it makes sense. It's pre craven politicking and it caused us as a nation to drop the ball on it pretty hard.
Re: (Score:3)
It's established interests, as usual. Oil producers, automotive manufacturers who invested heavily in combustion engines, gas producers, fossil fuel electricity plants, nuclear plants.
Battery electric vehicles and grid scale battery storage all harm their businesses, and boost their rivals.
I'm guessing they don't just create demand by building their own grid scale batteries because the grid operators, who also happen to be the fossil/nuclear operators, have some excuse as to why they can't add storage right
Re: (Score:2)
"Ironically Communist China has a more free market..."
Because it is no longer Communist, except for the slur.
Re: (Score:2)
Because it is no longer Communist, except for the slur.
You mean except for their name? They call themselves communists so it is hardly a slur to call them what they call themselves.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Alright ya got me, "best kind of of correct", but in 2025 with the amount of wind and solar also going up every battery made is as good as refining some gas. "Wind and solar is too intermittent", "well lets make batteries", "that isn't actually making energy"
Ahh, This old chestnut, no, an EV will have less total emission's including manufacture over it's lifetime than an ICE vehicle for miles driven. There's offsets everywhere. This is over and done, are we gonna have this argument forever? EV's are bett
Re: (Score:1)
Also this is even besides the point, EV's have enough advantages over ICE cars that they make sense even when taking emissions out the picture.
Then make that the selling point than keep having the argument on reduced emissions. Makes sense to me. That gets adoption of EVs for cleaner air without having to deal with the "deniers" while saving on blood pressure meds. If there's people that claim that EVs cause more pollution than them buying an ICEV, so they are doing people a "favor" by getting an ICEV, then it might be best to ignore them as they likely can't be reached.
I'm seeing more adverts for PHEVs and that's more likely to reach anyone ob
Re: (Score:2)
Ahh, This old chestnut, no, an EV will have less total emission's including manufacture over it's lifetime than an ICE vehicle for miles driven.
So what? You are comparing buying a new EV to buying a new ICE vehicle, the worst possible alternative. Not buying a new ICE vehicle will certainly prevent emissions, but also not buying an EV will prevent even more.
All buying a new EV does is add another vehicle to the fleet and its associated emissions. Its not replacing anything. Its just making a vehicle available to someone who would have had to walk, bike, use transit or skip their trip.
Almost no one who is buying an EV is junking their otherwise se
Fool and his money soon parted (Score:2)
The cost is bigger than the EV industry (Score:3, Insightful)
If investors think the next White House Party Change (WHPC)[TM) MAY make their investment worthless, they will be much less likely to invest unless they can get paid back before the next Presidential election.
Make me an offer (Score:3)
I'd like to buy about 60KWh of batteries soon.
Not for a car, but for a home.
Many folks are likely in the same boat, so why not address a huge market demand?
"Solar is great but batteries are too expensive" is something you'll hear all day long.
Bonus: It's cheaper to ship from North Carolina than from China.
Re: (Score:2)
The batteries you would make for a car may not be appropriate for your home and vice versa. Depending on how much space you have for batteries, you might prefer sodium batteries for longer life and lower cost.
Re:Make me an offer (Score:5, Informative)
Currently, LiFePO4 battery technology works well enough and for long enough for home storage. And since it's the same technology that EVs use, these plants certainly can target that market.
Re: (Score:2)
Okay but if you had something with longer life and lower cost available on the market, would you keep buying LiFePO4 batteries?
Re: (Score:2)
Government policy - subject to change (Score:1)
If government policy is the only reason an investment is profitable and no economic reason for it exists outside of that policy, then that investment is in trouble when the policy changes.
I thought that was self-evident?
Build affordable EVs (Score:4, Insightful)
The cost of a typical EV is way too expensive (beyond stupid actually). Years ago we were told EVs would cost less because of fewer moving parts and simpler manufacturing techniques. The opposite has panned out. Now we have cell phones on wheels with so much DRM, spying, "self driving" BS, anti-repair parts pairing, and sensors causing even the slightest fender bender to cost thousands of dollars. Why not a simple car without all of this (yes knobs instead of a big stupid iPad) that is affordable? Something like an electrified Pontiac Vibe (a Toyota Matrix in disguise) would be an ideal electric car. The average person doesn't want ludicrous speed, 600HP, or a 350 mile range for a typical daily driver. I would use an electric if I could for 90% of my daily around town and back and forth to work driving. If I need to go on a long distance trip then my ICE will do. Gradually introduce the EV until the infrastructure for charging them catches up. There is nothing wrong with ICE and EV coexisting until the changeover has been completed. But at today's EV prices that isn't an option for a vast majority of people. Right to repair also needs to be passed at a federal level to stop the manufacturer fuckery too, but that's another topic.
Re: (Score:2)
There is nothing wrong with ICE and EV coexisting until the changeover has been completed.
You are assuming that people have enough money to own two fairly new vehicles.
Re:Build affordable EVs (Score:4, Interesting)
Most people already have an ICE. Adding an EV to the stable is extremely cost prohibitive if you wish to keep the current ICE. An affordable EV for daily driving is needed to allow people to experience the benefits the EV offers. Something they can charge overnight on a 110VAC or 220VAC outlet they already have to top the battery off. You know, a sane EV, 0 to 60 in 8 to 10 seconds, 125HP to 150HP, none of the self driving BS beyond cruise control and separation. KNOBS and DIALS. You know, a true daily driver, not a rented (no, you don't truly own it, read the TOS) mother ship connected spying cell phone on wheels that's constantly allowing the manufacturer to suck you dry.
Re: (Score:1)
You are assuming that people have enough money to own two fairly new vehicles.
Or even WANT two vehicles.
Or have a place to PARK two vehicles.
Re: (Score:3)
A vast majority of people live out in the boonies (like me in northern Ohio) and already have two (or more) ICE vehicles. Lots of people want, and need, two vehicles at their disposal. I can see those living in cities only having the room for one car. Wouldn't it be nice to have some affordable sane EVs to choose from?
Re: (Score:2)
"There will never be an EV as affordable" - not as long as people have this attitude. Speak up, vote with your wallet and don't buy the currently available nightmares. Let the manufacturers know what you expect and not accept what they are offering. We allow these companies to push their crap on us because we don't speak up, shrug our shoulders, and accept the abuse. Consumers have forgotten that they hold the power. Companies are holding their breath hoping we don't regain that knowledge.
Re: (Score:1)
The math just doesn't pencil out.
I paid $31K for my vehicle. Even if an equivalent EV vehicle were available for that same $31K today, I'd never reach the break-even point against just continuing to drive what I already have.
The only way it would ever make sense to replace my current vehicle is if I were to have a catastrophic accident that required me to replace it. That's the case whether we're talking about an EV or non-EV replacement.
I'll fully grant you that not everyone is similarly situated, and for
Re: (Score:2)
You are assuming that people have enough money to own two fairly new vehicles.
Or even WANT two vehicles. Or have a place to PARK two vehicles.
I have an EV, my wife has a ICE car. It seems perfectly reasonable to me to have two cars, one for each of us.
Are slashdotters really too poor to have two cars in the family? Most of the people I know have two cars.
Re: (Score:2)
There is nothing wrong with ICE and EV coexisting until the changeover has been completed.
I agree. Many households in the USA have more than one vehicle, and the different drivers in that household are likely to have different driving needs. As an example my brother drives a large truck as he often moves a lot of tools and materials, and has a fairly regular need to pull a trailer. His wife mostly just drives to and from work a short distance from home and so drives a BEV.
For those that might not need multiple vehicles but would like the advantages of driving on all electric power for short t
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with your comment is that EVs have become more economical in total cost of ownership than ICE for the past 1.5 years. In other words, if you buy an ICE car or hybrid, you just made he wrong economic decision. This assumes you buy a new entry level Model 3 or equivalent competitor.
Re: (Score:2)
Now we have cell phones on wheels with so much DRM, spying, "self driving" BS, anti-repair parts pairing, and sensors causing even the slightest fender bender to cost thousands of dollars.
That's the worst part. All that data collection and lockout, and they charge more for that. They don't even try to argue that this subsidizes the cost of the car... they've got the nerve to gouge you.
I'm glad my 11-year-old car is still in perfect shape. I'd hate to have to buy anything new right now.
The WaPo going all MAGAt (Score:4)
Don't read the lies (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Just like an ever increasing amount of "news" in the US, there's some narrative scrambling for clicks rather than facts. US news is starting to push beyond political driven narratives straight into "lying because it's more profitable and we need marketshare".
Directly blame Google for that situation. They're the one who have been aggressively pushing the ad-revenue model. Back before Google, media was supported by a mixture of advertising and subscription. We even had a few media sources that were truly independent and both government-backed, and privately supported by individual subscriptions and contributions. Google poisoned the well, and we are all paying the price.
Re: (Score:2)
US news is starting to push beyond political driven narratives straight into "lying because it's more profitable and we need marketshare".
We have been there for a while. Profit was always the motive. What has really changed is that the content is no longer important. Its only the quality of the clickbait headline. The content of the story doesn't even have to be very closely related.
Nuclear is better than storage (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Keep telling me how this is cheaper and more economical than a nuclear power plant.
I can't yet, because the cost of dealing with long-term nuclear waste isn't well-defined.
If the cost turns out to be "leave it at the plant forever and make laws so nobody can sue before something really bad happens and get lucky (nothing bad actually happens in the lifetime of any investors)" then yeah, nuke plants can be relatively cheap.
But right now, it's a big question mark. Investors don't like big question marks.
Re: (Score:2)
nuclear waste
Used fuel (aka nuclear waste from a nuclear power plant) is not a real problem. It just isn't. You can keep fearmongering but what we are currently doing(cool in water for 10 years followed by cask storage) is working extremely well.
Used fuel has never killed a single human being.
There isn't a lot of it. We could put all of it a building the size of a walmart.
It is a solid metal meaning it can never leak.
It decays exponentially meaning all of those dangerous for thousands of years claims are lies. For some
US is failing/falling to the back of the pack (Score:2)
EV sales are stagnant or falling in the US while they are rapidly rising in the rest of the world.
Main factors are the BBB eliminating all tax incentives and even adding a new EV tax. Of course, there is the usual FUD about EVs which the ignorant seem to fall for easily.
Another sign that the US is falling behind. Tariffs, economic isolationism, and general Idiocracy.
We are already last (of "developed" countries) in health and education. We're now headed to be last in everything...
Re: (Score:2)
... and even adding a new EV tax.
If EVs are getting taxed then consider that a good thing. Doesn't the philosophy on the economy go something like... If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. If it stops moving, subsidize it.
EVs have moved beyond the "subsidize it" stage as it has kept moving. I don't know how long people expected EVs to be subsidized. If they got what they wanted, every vehicle is electric, then at some point the government is simply subsidizing car ownership. If there is a parallel goal of convincing m
Re: (Score:2)
We still have massive subsidies for fossil fuels. Will they ever move beyond the subsidized stage?
The US bullies other nations. It is not bullied by others.
The US produces excess food and exports a lot of the excess.
It doesn't have the right climate to produce things like cocoa, coffee, bananas but it can get these through the miracle of trade.
Re: (Score:2)
We still have massive subsidies for fossil fuels. Will they ever move beyond the subsidized stage?
The subsidies are "massive"? On a pure dollar amount that can be true but on a per BTU/joule/whatever basis there's clearly more subsidies for renewable energy.
I've seen people do the math on the "massive" subsidies and to make it look like more than was going to renewable energy they had to get into some "creative" accounting.
Just because the government is buying a lot of fossil fuels does not make that a subsidy. Then there's going to be some protections on fossil fuel production because the military ne
Re: (Score:2)
Renewable energy subsides 2024 were a record $32 billion and generated about 3% of total energy.
Fossil fuel subsidies were $873 billion so about proportional.
However, most (more than half) of the fossil fuel energy is wasted due to inefficiency so if you take that into account fossil fuel receives much more subsidy.
As far a war goes, we just started another fossil fuel war in the Middle East. The last one cost $3 trillion.
Finally we caught up to Jiiihna on something (Score:1)
...then the Orange Hemorrhoid pisses all over it.
Jevons Paradox (Score:2)
Reality is going to hit the EV market (Score:1)
While I really want EV's to be the "be all end all" to CO2 emissions, they're just not. ICE passenger vehicles account for 16% of CO2 emissions in the US.
For starters, power has to be generated to charge an EV. Unless it's nuclear, geothermal, hydroelectric,solar, or wind it's still going to generate CO2. However even if the power is generated by one of those, there was still a massive amount of mining, manufacturing, and shipping that was required to get those built. Speaking of mining, it requires 250 to
so they suck? (Score:1)
Business model was just grifting off the taxpayer (Score:2)
Whilst it is rational in the short term to build something in response to subsidies, making your profitability reliant on those subsidies is always going to be vulnerable to politics. A subsidy should encourage a new industry to invest but should not be an ongoing form of support.
Owning the Libs (Score:1)
I doubt this investment will be stranded. (Score:2)
The factories that produce batteries for EVs can certainly find other uses for the batteries they produce, I have doubts this will be a stranded investment.
The most obvious market for these batteries will be whole-house, and grid connected, batteries to help ride out interruptions in grid power. It seems whenever I make a mention of power outages in the USA there's going to be someone out of Europe that will make a comment on how bad the grid in the USA must be that there's people worried about a power out
EV Batteries can be used ouside cars (Score:2)
The article might need to mention that.
Why not see about new markets? (Score:2)
Batteries are always useful. Why not get with a car maker and make a serial hybrid, similar to a BMW i3 with a range extender or a Chevy Volt? Done right, the battery bank doesn't have to be huge, as the generator could be able to handle the output of the motor at the wheels [1]. This is a way to have a very simple engine, and a relatively simple drivetrain with less need of transmissions, and other points of failure that wear out.
Another place is a charger/inverter in a home. This could make life a lot
Link from WaPo doesnt mention EV incentives (Score:2)
I find it odd that an anonymous person is proclaiming that EVs are not in demand when there isnt evidence of that. Then they cite the Washington Post as a source for cutting EV incentives... but the article doesnt mention EVs at all.
is it because they keep catching fire? (Score:2)
is it because they keep catching fire?
Not just the plants, but the cars with the batteries manufactured there?
Don't have the stats... but it's fairly common these days to read/watch a report locally about an EV burning... a parking garage destroyed/parking lot/fairy destroyed on the national news... and then the occasional battery manufacturing plant catching fire... I'm all for EV's, but there is zero chance I'm putting one in the garage.
I know ICE vehicles catch fire too... but the perception is that EV
Re: Republicans (Score:5, Informative)
Because they're part of the far left woke climate conspiracy. Or something.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Republicans (Score:4, Insightful)
He didn't have a jet gifted to him from the Qatari royal family either.
Re: Republicans (Score:1)
Re: Republicans (Score:2)
he walked over water and launched himself into the sky, clearly he must have had access to advanced technology like an electric jetpack
Re: (Score:2)
Gravity is a human construct only invented by Sir Isaac Newton in the 17th century!
If you've ever seen the Christian allegory, The Matrix, Neo isn't bound by the conventional laws of nature.
Re:Republicans (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do they hate EVs so much?
Because the Democrats like EVs. The Republican Party stands for one thing, and one thing alone, these days: to oppose anything and everything that the Democrats like. The MAGAt crowd takes this to its ultimate consequences: the only thing that matters to them is that the liberals suffer, even if in order to achieve that the MAGAts themselves must suffer.
Re:Democrats (Score:2)
Because the Republicans like EVs. The Democrat Party stands for one thing, and one thing alone, these days: to oppose anything and everything that the Republicans like.
There. Fixed that for ya.
I know plenty of Republicans that drive EVs. It was the Left (Democrats) that torched Teslas and Tesla dealerships.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Republicans (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
They totally suck for driving from bumfuck nowhere to the nearest Costco, for example.
Re: (Score:1)
They totally suck for driving from bumfuck nowhere to the nearest Costco, for example.
Yes but "bumfuck nowhere" is sooo much better than downtown shithole that it is worth it.
Re: Republicans (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because their donors own all the dino juice and they want to sell as much of it as they can before China achieves energy independence and the rest of the world rides their coat tails.
Re: (Score:1)
The tax incentives are freaking obnoxious.
You probably could have started and ended there. I doubt any Republican would care either way about EVs if it weren't for the government subsidies. That includes subsidies on any EV chargers.
If the BEV, or even PHEV, where clearly the better product than the ICEV as we know them today then there's not likely to be any hate for EVs. Why would they? Republicans would likely be buying them up as much as Democrats. With Tesla being an American company I'd expect Republicans to drive them out of national pr
Re: (Score:2)
We had the same effect when the incandescent light bulbs were replaced first by fluorescent lamps and now by LED bulbs. For some time, people were buying the l
Re: (Score:2)
There still would be hate for EVs. It's easy. If buying an EV is virtue signalling, you find a large part of the population feeling forced to buy an EV too, and so they will use every argument they can come up with why they won't do so. In fact, buying an ICEV becomes some kind of anti-establishment thing, and people will buy them just to be rebels.
Of course, that's human nature. So stop making the purchase of an EV be a political statement. I'm seeing a shift in adverts for BEVs and PHEVs, they aren't talking much at all about the cleaner air and lower CO2 emissions any more. What I'm seeing is a mention of convenience, luxury, cost savings, safety, or the typical stuff that sold cars before CO2 emissions were a thing.
People are still going to buy expensive cars to show off, and for some people that means buying electric.
We had the same effect when the incandescent light bulbs were replaced first by fluorescent lamps and now by LED bulbs. For some time, people were buying the last stocks of incandescent light bulbs at premium prices, and stories were circulating how LED lamps emit those evil 5G radiation and similar. Now, 15 years later, no one seems to remember.
I remember, except the par
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's that IC cars are scheduled to be banned within the next few years. Lots of people know that EVs don't work for their own situation, like, the person lives in an apartment and has no easy way to charge.
That's why most forward-looking states have passed laws requiring new apartments to have adequate charging spaces.
Insurance rates have gone waaaay up in no small part due to liabiity claims from EVs. EVs are pretty much disposable.
Not really. EVs are actually slightly less likely to be totaled in a wreck [autobodynews.com] than ICE cars, and because they're more likely to have advanced driving assistance features, they're also less likely to get in a wreck in the first place, assuming all else is equal, ignoring minor parking lot mishaps, which are largely vehicle-agnostic.
Repairs can be more expensive, however, and that, coupled with the