So looking at the Premium Sedan market share in the US (which is arguably the most important market in the world) the numbers show a 1% decline in sales for 2020 - "The midsized car segment continues to lose share in the US car market in 2020. Sales were down 22% in an overall market down 14%. As a result the share of midsized cars drops by 1 percentage point to 10.2%, and in absolute numbers, the 1.5 million sales make this the lowest year of this millennium and long before it." - from https://carsalesbase.com/us-car-sales-analysis-2020-midsized...
So while the premium sedan category (including Tesla 3) is declining overall, Tesla is reporting to its shareholders the "great achievement" of winning that sales declining race.
> the premium sedan category (including Tesla 3) is declining overall
Uh... wat? Model 3 sales are growing very rapidly! Trying to argue that they aren't because the category they are being compared to is not is... somewhat weird.
I mean, look. The M3 is now selling more cars than Mercedes or BMW do in the same price segment. That's... pretty impressive, isn't it? I don't think that's spin, the E Class and 3 Series are very successful cars. They seem like a pretty good benchmark.
But yes: it's true that people bought fewer of them during the pandemic. It's also not very surprising, nor very informative about Tesla, who sold far more cars in 2020 than 2019.
> I had to read the comment several times to figure out if it meant that somehow BMW was selling more M3s than the whole 3 Series lineup.
The whole 3 Series lineup is not in the same price segment as the M3, is it?
How could BMW sell more M3 cars than the total number of cars they sell in that price segment?
Using the name of a car from an adjacent price range in the same segment is absolutely ambiguous, especially when Tesla is competing on price/performance.
If you want to abbreviate it then call it a TM3 or something. The M3 has been a car for 35 years and it's too similar to the Model 3 for that not to be confusing.
It’s in the larger context of Model 3 sales relative to other cars with an unclear definition of what those cars are. They compare sales of the Model 3 to the Mercedes E class! It’s reasonable then to wonder if M3 numbers are or maybe are not included.
Additionally the M3 has been a significant volume seller in the past. There are a lot of E46 M3s in comparison to the rest of the E46 fleet. It would surprise me to learn BMW is selling more G80 M3s than G80 3 Series but with declining sales in the segment maybe the “premium” car is the one retaining sales.
The usage of “M3” is ambiguous because at first glance all of that seems possible, if surprising.
Why are we arguing about this? The M3 is a 35 year old name that is in the same segment as a Model 3. Calling a Model 3 an M3 is always going to cause confusion. It would even cause confusion on the showroom floor of a Tesla dealership.
The Germans will admit the SUV are the US market (look at their lineup) and the day that the Y outsells GL class cars, then I’ll eat humble pie.
For Context: The SUV class of the same relative size sells about 3x the sedan.
https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20210108005349/en/Mer...
Do you really have doubt this day isn't coming very soon? 2023 tops. Mercedes SUV are niche luxury. Tesla will only shed away price on the Y's due to declining battery prices, improved manufacturing with gigafactories, and their mission of reducing emissions by getting everyone into EV's.
I mean sometimes I think "who the hell needs a GLB AMG??" but it's one of the few SUVs of that size that seats 7 passengers and serves a need for families in certain EU and Asia markets.
Any given Mercedes SUV may be niche luxury but they cover many many niches with their lineup.
Literally the Model Y also. Not sure if this is the need you're referring to or something else. But Mercedes is far behind on EV's and not even close to Tesla. This switch is happening now, if you haven't noticed all the SUV PHEV, ID.4 launch, and Toyota BZ4x announcement. Once the majority of developed nations aren't using much gasoline, taxes will be raised and Mercedes lack of EV will be critical. I mean they are almost dead last behind Tesla, VW, BMW, Nissan, Toyota, Honda, Ford, GM, etc.
Tesla bundles its sales with the Model 3 (bad sign) & 3rd party data suggests they sold 3k in Q4:20 with negative trending.
I agree EVs are the future, I think Tesla was a major innovator in the space, but has stagnated recently and the blind faith in Musk / Tesla is ultimately bad for the cutover
I mean, kind of? It's much more complicated when you look at market over market. Tesla sales in the US haven't really grown much since the summer of 2019, and that's despite releasing a whole new model in that period. They've definitely been selling more cars, but the majority of that growth is fueled by entering new markets, not growing existing ones. That's important, because both types of growth have different levels of sustainability.
No, it's not. If you sell more horses worldwide out of the “four legged category” it has no relevance as long as less and less people are buying horses for transportation.
I mean, by your logic if Tesla isn't impressive for what the Model 3 is doing then Daimler Chrysler must be a flaming disaster, right?
If Tesla is so impressive, why do they need to do that?
ICE is currently 97% of the automobile market. A BEV taking the lead in any vehicle segment is a major milestone. Nothing is misleading about that.
Has taken the lead on the "premium sedan" category market, where less and less people are buying "premium sedans".
What scare quotes?
Given that this is literally the first mass market car by Tesla, achieving leading sales globally over comparable products by BMW and Mercedes is clearly pretty important.
And as they said, they hope Model Y will hopefully be the best selling vehicle globally next year.
This is important to point out after 5 years of FUD about how Tesla has no demand.
It's very important to wonder "how much of this is EV demand" vs "how much of this is car specific demand". Tesla's Model 3 sales basically declined in lockstep with Model Y's rise: https://cleantechnica.com/2021/02/15/tesla-model-3-model-y-o...
It will be interesting to see if Tesla can grow them simultaneously going forward, but it hasn't really seemed to be the case. This doesn't make me bullish on any prediction that the Model Y is going to be the best selling vehicle globally.
All the other companies are changing production towards different other categories, but the “achievement” Tesla wants their shareholders to be happy about is that they sell more of the cars less and less people are buying.
If you sell more horses worldwide out of the “four legged category” it has no relevance as long as less and less people are buying horses for transportation.
I have no data to back it up, but it seems likely that the people who can afford a luxury car are also the people that could afford to stay home during the pandemic. Personally, I'm finding it hard to justify a new car when I'm 6 months overdue for an oil change and not even at half the miles. :-)
Tesla is of course also expecting to sell more CUV and Pickups in the future and we have seen the sales growth of the Model Y.
Seriously making the argument that being the globally highest selling car in a well known very well specified category with their first ever turley mass produced car after just a few years of production is not an achievement is just insane argument.
I'm astonished this made it to production. Red tape and bureaucracy means nobody is willing to push back against a feature that is bad and potentially dangerous (maybe not any more dangerous than touchscreens though).
Maybe not any more dangerous than fancy lane control marketed as full self driving...
As for peers, rather than underlings, the key word is consensus. Which is only achieved after endless months of interminable meetings during the day and interminable socializing during the evening. Maybe they finally reach consensus because they're worn out by all the discussion?
I hate touchscreens on the dash of moving cars. This interface is (perhaps?) worse, since the guy was making mistakes even in a stopped vehicle. But it would be interesting to try to use the interface while moving. One's hand is probably more stable down low, resting on the console, rather than extended out in space reaching for a touchscreen?
Either way, the interface is much worse than physical buttons on a console or dash.
Also, Acura's trackpad or whatever just needs a cursor. I wonder why they didn't think of that.
Regarding headquarters, true, but it's still a division of Honda, which most people would consider a Japanese company.
Is premium how fast the car goes, or how many paint colors it comes in? Different people have different requirements.
You are likely paying over 100k to get a car as fast as a model 3.
Now if you wanted to argue that the Tesla Model 3/Y aren’t “Luxury Sedans”, I think you have a point. Not so much for the reasons you list, but because the ride is harsher than the Mercedes. But then, some BMWs have a similar ride so it’s hard to say.
What Model 3 lacks is quality interior and options.
Define fast
Model 3 Performance in Track mode is #12 in this list[0]. The least you can pay for this version is $55k.
#13 is a Jaguar XE SV Project at $188k
#11 is a Bentley Bentayga at $160,000
#10 is an Acura NSX at $157,000
[0] https://www.motortrend.com/news/quickest-cars-motortrend-201...
What is this, kindergarten?
I replaced it with a Model 3 and put 70,000 miles on it so far. Paid $49,000 for it, which is in the mid-point of what you'd pay for a new 328i. It's even more fun to drive, with operating costs at about 1/4 the BMW.
In all sincerity, after reading through the comments, it seems to me that the folks making negative claims are picking specific things they don't like, or relating what they've heard about the car. I expect that if they spent a week driving it in place of their current pony, they'd change their opinion. The overall experience is better than any other car I've driven.
Also, there are for sure people who simply don't care about the driving experience itself and see cars as nothing more than transportation. For them, I also can see the a Tesla would have much less appeal.
The German car companies will nickle and dime you to death with options, they have terrible interiors/user interfaces, etc. Granted I wish the model 3 had cooled seats but meh.
Even a model S doesn't count with that logic.
[1] https://pdfaiw.uspto.gov/.aiw?PageNum=0&docid=20190291613&ID...
And what parts are vibrating? Do you mean making an audible sound? Or the car is shimmying?
I'm with you. It's certainly a premium price, but (IMHO) it really shouldn't be considered "premium" on overall build quality or accoutrements.
Pretty impressive, especially considering that the 3 series is a similar age (both ~2018). The C class is getting long in the tooth, though, dates to 2016.
I wonder if the numbers are also wrong? Did they actually compare E Class and A6 sales instead of C Class and A5 sales?
Are 4 Series included in with 3 Series numbers? What about M cars?
Also, the 3 Series wagon seems like it would be included in these numbers?
I don't think Tesla runs promotions like that, so if they want to change the price, they have to change the price.
In the beginning Tesla's selling point was that they were not a dealer, you go to the showroom and there is no pressure because everyone pays the same price.
Except with their pricing monkey business, you're replicating the same high-pressure "buy now before the price goes up"... for everyone.
Aren't they over the hump? Can they get away from gym-membership stuff?
Combine that with the variability of other nonsense - when will I get my car/truck? surprise! square steering wheel! etc...
A true premium experience should treat people better, and ONLY inflict positive drama.
In my guesstimation, Tesla will be making electric cars with a range to dollar ratio that can’t possibly be matched by incumbents for the foreseeable future.
VW and the rest are more capable of producing a refined car, but (again, my opinion) Tesla’s EV advantage is similar to the big three’s various inertial advantages that they enjoyed in the mid-20th century.
Perhaps more US-specific: buying a Tesla over something like a VW ID.4 gives you the supercharger network. It will be years if not decades before the general open standard charging network can compete with that benefit of ownership.
Tesla Y is for sure faster and the better drive. It's also like 10-15k more expensive and that's not even before VW's rebates. The interior was weird -- tiny headrests, tiny mirrors, and really poor back visibility. A giant screen in middle and nothing else wasn't particularly great, and I don't have CarPlay (I know Tesla has a lot of functionality in their system, but I'd personally rather drive it all from my phone to have a more continuous experience in car and out of car). On that screen was a 'video game'-ified representation of what Autopilot was seeing... not only distracting, but kept being wrong while I was stopped at a red light staring at it as it missed the cars in front of me and kept rapidly alternating what direction the incoming lane was going to turn. And that's driving the car? Scary!
I don't care about being faster, the ID.4 is plenty fast. I also don't really care about 250mi versus 350mi range or whatever right now.. all are inconvenient for a super long trip. I just recently drove from SF to near Canada... that was a very long multi-day drive and I would for sure not want to have multiple 35m+ stops in addition to the long drive. Until the technology gets WAYYY better I'll just rent ICE cars for a very long drive. Until then 250mi is plenty to get around the Bay Area knowing I can just plugin at home overnight to recharge.
VW has build a Electrify America charging network from a 2B settlement for their diesel emissions standards. If they're smart they'll capitalize on this and win much more in the long run by becoming Exxon AND a car company... their network isn't exclusive to their cars.
With everyone coming online in the next couple years, Tesla is going to have very real competition. I don't think the areas that they're better at are quite as make/break for car decision making as they claim to be. Elon Musk himself certainly doesn't help as a very divisive figure (and was part of the reason I didn't want a Tesla).
The visualization happening there is more limited than what the car actually sees via the cameras, probably for performance reasons (it runs on a Intel Atom processor in the 3/Y) - you can see a more detailed representation on page 8 of https://tesla-cdn.thron.com/static/4E7BR9_TSLA_Q3_2020_Updat... and you can see more from public personalities with access to the beta https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=tesla+fsd+beta
Btw it’s -9k with rebates. But I also leased as I anticipate it being uncompetitive in 3 years. Everyone has EVs coming so the tech and competition will mature quickly. This is a first gen car for VW.
It is good though that you got your vehicle on lease. If it is like my first-generation A4, everything will start to fall apart after 3 years.
This is true, but BEV sales is currently only 3% or so of the total automobile market. There is so much room for growth. Tesla, VW, GM, and practically all major automakers pour money into BEV not to take a share in the 3% slice of the market.
Tesla will remain the leader in the BEV in the foreseeable future even with more competition. Smaller slide likely, but of a much bigger pie.
Also, surprisingly actual road mileage is better in the Mach-e too[1].
Tesla felt like a car built around the software and ford felt like a car with the software as an afterthought. But I like driving cars (drive a manual right now), so, don’t really care as much about the software as others.
[1] https://www.edmunds.com/car-news/electric-car-range-and-cons...
That isn't true today, never mind the future. If you want range to dollars then the Chevy Bolt is hard to beat. Especially with deals like this:
https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/chevy-bolt-ev-available-f...
It's also important to consider real world miles versus paper miles. Tesla's EPA range figures are inflated. On paper, the Tesla Model Y should have more range than the Ford Mustang Mach E. But in real world driving the Mach E has the greater range:
The stations seems to cost a few hundred thousand dollars.
So they have a lead, but it's roughly a billion dollars (or maybe 2) to build out something similar, that isn't going to take decades.
There are tens of thousands of places that might install a couple high power chargers (restaurants and similar). Doesn't take that many of them to add a lot of capacity, even if it isn't spaced out quite as well.
Also Tesla has two full production lines for the station gear. One in Shanghai and one in Buffalo NY. Electrify America is a hodgepodge of 4 different suppliers gear.
It's sort of neutral that there's more than one manufacturer of the other chargers, if the chargers work well with vehicles it doesn't matter if they come from 15 factories or 2.
Tesla clearly has a lead. My point is that it is unlikely to be durable.
https://insideevs.com/news/389891/exclusive-interview-electr...
“Electrify America currently uses units made by ABB, BTC, Signet, and Efacec. Every time they have a software or hardware update, it has to be done on all four brands, and they don't always all work the same afterward. Fitezek has to work out the kinks with all four partners and they all respond on different timelines. I could see that this was clearly a pain point for him.”
Long term? While I don't feel confident hazarding a guess when the ICE–EV inflection point will occur, I expect that inflection point to be marked by a series of corporate collapses as the transition (or indeed the failure to transition) ultimately bankrupts them.
Telsa also is the only car manu. was access to enough batteries to ship car in en masse. All the the companies making evs are significantly limited by batteries. Finally teslas have much better energy efficiency/mile. 800v charging and car systems is one area tesla is behind (they are 400v).
I would expect battery production capacity to be somewhat lumpy (with big shifts when new mines or factories open). That can take a long time and I haven't looked at where things are, but it also means that there can be a very sudden shift.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSmSiOo-v8s
Tesla likes to maximize their EPA test cycle results to make the advertising look good, but it doesn't necessarily translate to real world results.
It's important to appreciate that the utility of energy efficiency metrics are different for ICE and EV. In an ICE car, fuel efficiency is pretty much just a stand-in for running costs and tailpipe pollution, so it makes sense for the test cycle to represent a plausible balance of city and highway driving.
But when it comes to vehicle range, you mostly care about range in the context of long distance driving. What matters is highway cruising efficiency, not some emissions-focused test cycle. So when judging the range of an EV, it should be as simple as highway efficiency multiplied by usable battery capacity.
Most reviews also note that tesla clings to their bullshit remaining range number until the battery is near depletion then suddenly drops. Other EVs have a remaining distance gauge that closely matches actual remaining range.
It's not enough of a difference to account for the range deficit. Add on 12.6 miles for the Model Y and 7.3 miles for the Mach E. The Mustang still comes out on top:
https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1131706_tesla-saves-mor...
> But when it comes to vehicle range, you mostly care about range in the context of long distance driving.
Yes, the Mach E does it better.
> What matters is highway cruising efficiency
No. What matters is how far you can drive for the money you spent.
My point was about efficiency, not range. Range can easily be made higher by putting in a bigger battery, which is precisely what Ford did here. Quoting from your own citation: "Keep in mind that the Tesla Model Y is more efficient than the Mach E but it has a smaller battery. Its battery pack is 75 kWh nominal. The battery pack in the Mach E is quite large, it's basically 99 kWh nominal."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSmSiOo-v8s&t=61s
Note that the above are nominal (i.e. physical) battery capacities. Ford generally promotes the usable capacity of the battery, which is 88 kWh. The equivalent usable capacity of the Tesla battery is unknown, but it's likely to be a similar fraction.
You correctly point out that what matters is how far you can drive for the money you spent. I agree. When you add up the money you spent on electricity to fill up the battery, then the Model Y goes further per dollar spent on electricity.
It isn't unknown and it's not a similar fraction. It's 73 kWh usable in the Model Y:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lYxTJzZ5sJY
A better question is why does Tesla not reveal such a basic detail in its marketing.
> When you add up the money you spent on electricity to fill up the battery, then the Model Y goes further per dollar spent on electricity.
You aren't going to see much benefit from that. The difference is 6%.
The Mustang Mach E is thousands of dollars cheaper than the Model Y with the current incentives that it qualifies for. The California Route 1 trim is cheaper even without incentives and gets even more range because it's rear wheel drive. That's a lot of charging to make up the difference.
Nonetheless, even if we accept your logic, your point remains a weird one. The vehicle with a 88 kWh "usable" capacity goes a little bit further on the highway compared to the vehicle with a 73 kWh "usable" capacity. Is this supposed to be a surprise to anyone?
My point was about efficiency, not range. Range can easily be made higher by putting in a bigger battery, which is precisely what Ford did here. Quoting from your own citation: "Keep in mind that the Tesla Model Y is more efficient than the Mach E but it has a smaller battery." That was my point. You're making another point and I'm not disagreeing with it.
It isn't weird that car buyers consider how much the car will cost them.
> Is this supposed to be a surprise to anyone?
This has all been a surprise to you. You're not across the detail but that's okay. Now you know more.
our 2019 100D promised 491 kilometres of electrically-powered zero emission motoring while the Porsche’s said the Taycan would only be able to manage 345 km.
the Porsche had almost exactly delivered its expected range — 342 km according to our calculations, versus its original 345-km claim — the Model S was all but as dead as a door-nail at 355 klicks. For the record, the Tesla underperformed its predicted range by some 136 kilometres, or negative 27 per cent, while the Taycan exceeded its EPA rating by 15 klicks (more than four per cent).
Also the Tesla Roadster was slightly before the Leaf if my memory is correct. It was a super-expensive niche car but it showed what an EV can do.
BTW my Leaf out-accelerates many muscular gasoline cars. The torque curve benefits of EVs are universal and apply even to wimpier EVs.
As for build quality, my maintenance so far is $850 for a windshield. Cuz... I drive it so fast all the time, pebbles chipped away at it until it cracked down the middle. That's it.
I can also attest that operating costs are 1/4 the BMW. Energy costs, yes, but also $0 for brake pads (I'm at 90% after 70k miles), $0 for fluids (no oil, brake fluid, transmission fluid, radiator flush, ...).
DOT 3, 4, and 5.1 fluid will absorb water on purpose and disperse it throughout the fluid. Over time if you do not flush out this water-contaminated fluid it'll start to cause corrosion inside the brake system.
The good:
- Handling. Model 3 is sharper acceleration, flatter and faster curves, 4-wheel active traction control(<- this is amazing, it automatically corrects the car's position when breaking traction)
- Sound System. Model 3 sound system is better than either of the other two. Moreover, it actually improved since I bought it through software upgrades. They even download new firmware into the amplifiers.
- Comfort. The Tesla seat is amazingly comfortable. I drove for 9 hours on Sunday for example. Never felt fatigued, no soreness, no pressure points in my ass. In the other cars, which are also very comfortable, I'd at least have a sore lower back after that amount of time in the saddle.
- Charging: Since Tesla has a captive charge station network, charging is a non-event. Back in to the stall and plug it in. It's fast and getting faster. No credit card input to futz with. Note that I don't have experience using other systems, but I've seen them collocated with Tesla chargers and I've seen users struggle trying to figure out how to get the juice flowing.
The Not Good:
- If the window is rolled down when you close the door, you can hear that it's not secured within the door (not premium).
- The trunk doesn't lift when you unlatch it from the console (not premium).
- Some carpeted seams are overlaid rather than joined. That seemed to be a miss in premium.
Overall, I'd say they focused on the elements that matter most (drive, comfort, sound) and the lesser factors, while important, will be corrected over time (fingers crossed).
FWIW, I did not label it as Premium. I don't know what I'd label it as, cuz I think BEVs are a different enough experience to have their own label. Just trying to offer some objectivity in this thread.
Are these numbers included?
Fully charged recently did an episode on second hand value of EVs. Basically, lease cars are sold in auctions and they indeed hold their value amazingly well. Most EVs produced since 2012 are still on the road and are still very decent value.
I tend to hang onto vehicles for 7+ years regardless so it’s not a big issue here.
I've heard this many a time.
They sell very well because it's cheap and in many countries you get a great tax deal on them making it even cheaper. Which I'm really happy for because EVs help against climate change. But I'm also very happy I cancelled my pre-order and don't have to drive a model 3.
If anything, the fact that a car that uses cheap plastic is outselling the car that doesn't use the cheap plastic at the same price is phenomenal.
My point is that a model 3 isn't really a luxury car, it's an entry model and has the build quality and options that go with that.
I'd pick the car with just okay paint and maybe some not-so-perfect gaps over a car that I know is going to cost me thousands in maintenance.
Had a similar feeling driving a rental VW Passat in the US, it felt like they make a special US version. Most notable difference was a very very lazy feeling gearbox.
And just so I don't sound like a Tesla fanboy or anything, I got a Model S high mileage loaner that also felt like it was about to break apart at any second.
I guess Americans just can't make cars! I hear the Chinese made Model 3's are really solid
Not sure whether a US market BMW is produced locally. If they are that would explain a lot in terms of US customers complaining about reliability and thinking a model 3 is like a German luxury car while to European customers it feels like a cheap American car. The frame of reference isn't the same.
Edit: So a quick Google shows a US BMW 3 series is produced in Mexico. And apparently has to use at least 50% locally made parts according to Mexican law.
It's not very important but when you close a door or the trunk on the model 3, it doesn't sound premium. It has this cheap metallic sound. When driving, the sound proofing is not the best either compared to similar priced EVs. About the interior materials, I am not a fan of the fake leather and I prefer the real leather you can find in most premium vehicles but I know it depends a lot on tastes and many like that it's not dead animals skin. The top of the trunk has no cover and someone at Tesla had fun with the hot glue gun on the car I rented, but I heard that the Porsche Taycan has no cover either.
At the same time the model 3 has a great entertainment system, drives super well, and I love the interior design. I would like to replace my old "premium" BMW i3 with a "premium" Model 3.
While I agree it would be great if we had 0 emission vehicles, today EV in US or Germany run largely of coal , hence battery production is anything but green...
Thus I still don’t see the point of what’s called « Transition ».
Climate change is real , but at the moment without nuclear fusion I fail to see how this is going to change anything it seems to be deporting the problem to be honest.
No? Coal accounts for 11% of US energy production. 7.5% for Germany.
https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/us-energy-facts/
https://www.statista.com/statistics/736640/energy-mix-german...
Otherwise the headline here is that renewables are already the dominant source of energy in the German market. Gas is the only thing growing in market size currently other than renewables and that's mostly just offsetting the decline of coal and nuclear. Overall, renewables grow faster. Otherwise, many EV owners also put solar on their roofs and/or buy power from renewable sources or charge at public chargers hooked up to renewable sources. So, the notion that EVs are powered by coal is very dated at this point.
Your fossil fuel burning electrical generation facility can be equipped with things to capture emissions. So can a fossil fuel burning car, but the car needs to be small, mobile, and light weight and that limits how much you can capture emissions. The electrical generation facility doesn't have those constraints.
The other big win is time: if I buy a conventionally-fueled car now I'm locking in its use of fossil fuels for 15+ years unless there's a major improvement in biofuels whereas if I buy an EV in many states I can at any time switch to 100% renewable electric charging. A non-trivial percentage of EV owners will consider that option over the life of the vehicle and that opens the possibility of policy makers making a substantial change without needing to coordinate with millions of people: bring wind, solr, geothermal, nuclear, etc. capacity online and you have a guaranteed day one reduction in the CO2 generated for transportation.
Furthermore, even if renewables do not fully power the BEV, it's easier to filter/capture pollutants at a single point source of generation than it is to try to capture these things across millions of vehicles. It's not just CO2 that's harming the environment, it's also nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, formaldehyde....
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_power_in_the_United_Sta...
It’s not an either or problem. It’s an also problem. Make power plants cleaner and make cars cleaner. Hit it from Both ends.
You’re right ! US has shifted from coal ... to Natural Gas !
I don’t think that this is solving the problem , natural gas comes from fracking ... but it’s definitely a small win knowing how big is America and how much less natural gas produces CO2.
Fission may have plenty of issues, but lets not pretend that the entire world is "fusion or bust".
Unfortunately , that’s no how it’s work.
Yes fission is great ! France runs on Fission it works greats.
Problem ? In 2015 at the current rate of consumption 130 years of uranium left on earth !
Sadly for us International Nuclear association estimated that if most country shifted to Nuclear that uranium would shift from 130 to just 30 years...
Regardless of how your turn the problem you’ll always end up to the same solution to satisfy the world need for energy :fusion.
Especially if you intend to have EV widely deployed.
First of all, this is nonsense. The same old peak-blabla nonsense.
Second of all, thorium can be used in current reactors. Third, thorium is practically unlimited.
Existing nuclear 'waste' and nuclear bombs contain huge amounts of potential energy as well.
With newer reactors these limits can be further broken by moving from terrible utilization to much higher utilization. And lets not ignore that modern CO2 turbines can improve efficiency by a further 20% at least.
There is absolutely no limit to fission in any theoretical or practical sense.
Its arguably renewable as volcanoes transport new thorium to the surface.
https://energy-charts.info/charts/energy_pie/chart.htm?l=en&...
Coal - almost 30% vs less than 10% of solar
I find this to be a major milestone in the transition to BEV. This is an achievement.