And oil gets cheaper as demand drops...

As a mechanic, I like that EVs are virtually maintenance free. My wife likes this as well as the fact that she never has to stand in the cold/rain/dark pumping gas ever again. Only a few die hards will miss that! Oh, and our fuel expenditure is now zero dollars.

Men in America buy pickup trucks because they are relentlessly pushed by the domestic automakers through advertising. They are cash cows for the automakers because the tech hasn’t changed in 60 years! Mary Barra of GM is lobbying Washington to loosen regs on trucks to preserve the profit stream in exchange for begrudgingly producing EVs. If we want to ban something we should ban advertising for new ICE vehicles then see what sells.

Personally, I am proud to be in the country which is leading the transportation and technological revolution. I just returned from a trip to Berlin and let me tell you they are at least 5 years behind the US. They all run around in Nike shoes talking on iPhones and the taxicabs are a fleet of clattering diesel e class wagons. I can’t sling a cat in Salt Lake without hitting a Model 3 or electric assist bike or Bird scooter but there are nearly none in Berlin. Our transportation tech will spread to developing countries the same way our computer tech did, but it will not happen overnight.

I'm not sure thats the case - Japanese and German cars are far better built and built to higher standards than anything I see in the US. They know how to build EVs too.

Trucks sell because they work, are cost effective and the market likes them. Marketing probably upscales them more than anything e.g. you have the base model but its really cool to have a top of line xyz. I'm not making a case for them, its just how people think.

While it may be fair to have a toe poke at Germany, the reality is the US has been the greatest emitter of GHG by total emissions and China is rapidly catching up (China is currently the single largest emitter of GHG, followed by the US) but in terms of total emissions the US is the winner by a huge margin.

Thus the US "virtue signalling" with Tesla doesn't wash - I think its fair to say most people here understand this. What will wash are realistic policy settings and real commitments to change - and that appears a long way off in the US

Note I'm not casting aspersions on the US or the people on here, just pointing out the reality .

The reality is Tesla selling 5000+ EVs per week while everyone else is steppin and fetchin. That is a real commitment to change right here right now.

And the Prius was released in the 90s - and trucks in the US outsell Tesla by 5:1.

Not a lot of commitment there..........and the US remains the second largest emitter of GHG and the worlds all time leader in this regard.

You maybe happy with the product you are getting at a US price point but that's at odds with various reliability surveys conducted in the US and elsewhere. Tesla and US manufactured vehicles rate poorly.

In contrast, Japanese, Korean and German vehicles tend to rate highly.

Others steppin and fetchin - you mean others are going through a process of assessing what the market wants and building products that are both desirable reliable and reach several price points in a global context.

Plenty of interesting stuff out there already, plenty more coming.

When was the last time you saw a TV ad for a Tesla? Trucks sell well in the US because domestic automakers push them relentlessly, incentivize them with thousands of dollars “cash back” and they’ll finance anyone with a pulse and a pay stub for 84 months. If they didn’t outsell every other vehicle I’d be shocked. I didn’t see a single American pickup in Berlin btw. No one else in the world buys that garbage for personal transportation. Women don’t either.

Steppin and fetchin is what an automaker does when they are caught cheating emission regulations which effectively shuts down their sales, requires them to buy back defective vehicles, puts their executives under criminal investigation and negates their long term product plans.

Last time I checked German cars had average long term reliability comparable to many US brands. I once asked the grease monkey under the cars at a busy Orange County Jiffy Lube, “What are the best cars you see roll through here? The ones with high mileage and no leaks or issues?” He said “Hondas and Toyotas.” So then I asked him “What are the worst?” He said “VW and Audi.”

The US won’t be the second largest emitter of ghgs for long if we lead the world in embracing new technology and stop wasting time trying to take down the current industry leader.

UPDATED: 10/24/2018 6:11 pm ET - adds details
"The top American brand in Consumer Reports' 2018 Auto Reliability Survey was Ford, and it finished 18th out of 29 marques in what was not a good showing for the domestics.
Cars and trucks from the Detroit 3 typically don't dominate the list -- that honor usually goes to Lexus and Toyota -- but the 2018 installment was especially bad for General Motors, Ford Motor Co. and Fiat Chrysler Automobiles. Lexus, Toyota, Mazda, Subaru and Kia were the top five brands."
http://www.autonews.com/article/2018...survey-detroit



The US has a long way to go to reduce emissions (not only is the number 2 emitter it has the double whammy of being the number 2 per capita).

Also Tesla and Musk were investigated and found against by the SEC - thats why they had to pay fines both as a company and Musk personally and thats why Musk had to step down as Chairman. No one is trying to take Tesla down they have caused their own problems and are actively shorted (a legal market balancing mechanism) because the balance sheet is out of line with respect to market capitalisation.

The solution revolves primarily around power generation/consumption and secondly small cars

I get the small cars bit but what do you mean by power generation/consumption?

And we are getting way off topic.

Except that is not true.

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sou...-gas-emissions

big sigh - in a global context, and you have to understand the detail - for example, Industry in these pie charts often means energy which often/largely means industrial power generation. In fact power generation generally accounts for at least 40% of emissions in general.

See below from your EPA

• Electricity production (28.4 percent of 2016 greenhouse gas emissions) – Electricity production generates the second largest share of greenhouse gas emissions. Approximately 68 percent of our electricity comes from burning fossil fuels, mostly coal and natural gas.3
• Industry (22 percent of 2016 greenhouse gas emissions) – Greenhouse gas emissions from industry primarily come from burning fossil fuels for energy, as well as greenhouse gas emissions from certain chemical reactions necessary to produce goods from raw materials.

For reference, it is often stated there is excess power capacity in state XYZ - this is largely true. But...........................the reality is that capacity is nearly always there to cover peak demand there (or somewhere else via interconnector) - primarily in the morning and late afternoon. This requires base load and fast start capacity which generally can only be reliably delivered by large hydro, gas, coal and nuclear. This is why California has ~ 35% of its generation capacity tied to gas - somewhat more efficient than coal but nontheless delivering 1 mole of CO2 for every mole of CH4 (methane, the principle constituent of natural gas).

Why are we talking about stationary power generation? This is a discussion about vehicles right? So we all switch to EVs one day in the future to take the transportation sector out of the ghg equation. Electricity may be generated by burning coal and natural gas, but it may also be generated using hydro, solar, wind, tidal, geothermal and other non polluting renewables.. The grid may also be decentralized using new battery technology, stationary hydrogen fuel cells and other on site methods. Public transportation becomes more convenient with better “last mile” options like bike share, Uber and electric scooters.
The pollution problem does not stop at greenhouse gases. I live in Salt Lake City which suffers from a natural inversion condition. We drown in a blanket of smog for most of the winter. Moving energy production from under the hood of every car, truck and van to a remotely located power plant sounds like a great idea to me.

I thought of you when I read about the new 2.7L Silverado. This is as good as fuel econmy gets for a full sized pickup - it runs on two cylinders! - and it still stinks 20/23 mpg.
https://www.automobilemag.com/news/2...w-first-drive/

Because a lot of EVs get connected to the grid at home, during journeys and at the end of a journey.😀

I wouldnt own a US pickup truck - however I do own a number of Toyota HiLuxs that average around 30mpg, pull 3.5 tonne loads and can carry about a tonne.

Then again I own some rural properties that require those types of vehicles. Whether we like it or not there is a very real need for vehicles of this type.

Cities are huge power sinks - if you live in one you should use public transport or have a tiny EV, perhaps an electric scooter as you suggest. In a city there is little need for heavy cars that have 300 plus mile ranges.

Surely its time to get back to the Model 3 - at least it's one Tesla that appears to benefit the environment in most scenarios. Of course no one wants a lightweight P50 - which would make a much larger impact.

Can you you explain to me why the relatively wealthy buyers of these cars are still getting a subsidy? and poor people in your country can't afford one, so have to buy old ICE cars and pay excise/duty/tax on fuel?

I am actually really interested in the logic of this - surely a handy subsidy on the cheapest most environmentally friendly model that encourages everyday users to move from ICE would be useful (this should have been means/income tested) Indeed wasn't that the original intent?

Whereas it looks like the opposite has happened eg wealthy people have been subsidised to buy higher end models and your average joe is going to lose out.

There is something inherently wrong about this.

Poor people do not buy new vehicles in the US or any other country, subsidies or not. Subsidies serve to depress used car prices too. For example, I bought my city car, a 2017 Fiat 500e which retails new for $33k, barely used (1200 miles on the clock) for $15k. That’s pretty cheap for basically a state of the art late model EV likely because the first owner pocketed at least a $7500 tax break right out of the gate. I’ve seen used Leafs and 500es as low as $6800. At least the tax breaks are in place to kick start a technology for the public good which is better than most tax loopholes.

Your doing well with your pickups, my SWB 4x4 Tacoma farm truck with the 2.7L/5 speed averages only 20mpg.