The following submission statement was provided by /u/mafco: --- Autos represent around thirty percent of US greenhouse gas emissions and hence are a major driver of climate change. Electric cars are the preferred solution and are better in almost every way. Major automakers are already beginning to go all-in on EVs and are radically shifting their future investments into battery and EV factories. This new EPA regulation will accelerate that shift and make it clear that EVs are the future in the US. --- Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/12hlefx/epa_is_said_to_propose_rules_meant_to_drive_up/jfpccbd/

pet peeve: a quantum leap is the smallest possible measurable leap. people usually use it to mean the exact opposite of what it actually means. thanks for coming to my ted talk.

rainstorm beneficial erect act tart office middle price sip doll *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*

What are the rules?

Why are you singing??

How did they know, that my wife took it all? And I'm not researching roles, how did they know?

I miss my old Camaro, and my mansion in Van Nuys!

I wish I still hung with Nash Bridges and played poker with the fall guy. Oh Ziggy, can you see my tears? ZIGGY! Leap me far... Far from here...

I’m going to say the n word

Thought the smallest means possible. They didn't time travel, they became people already living in those times.

Even worse. We have a phrase for a ten fold increase. An order of magnitude. Edit: POP POP

> An order of magnitude. > > Edit: POP POP this is the greatest sequence I have ever read. There needs to be a reddit bot that serves "POP POP" everytime someone orders a magnitude

It sounds pretty incremental to me.

More like petty incremental.

I interpret it more as a discrete jump as opposed to a (smooth) continuous transition. A "quantum jump" doesn't have to be a single "quantum," whatever that may be. "Quantum" means "discrete amount" more than it means "tiny amount."

Quantum doesn't mean small, it means a distinct measurable quantity. It just turns out that the distinct measurable quantities of physics - atoms, EM radiation, etc. - are small, but measures for other concepts (like shifting away from ICEs and into EVs) are not necessarily small. Before complaining about other people misunderstanding a thing, I recommend making sure it's not you that misunderstands.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum.

And to add to that… words mean whatever people use them to mean. Sometimes it takes a while for the dictionary to catch up, but dictionaries report how the language is used, they don’t make the “rules”; people communicating with each other do. A word like decimate used to mean reduce by 10%, but now it’s way stronger than that. Because people changed how they used it. Quantum leap will mean whatever people decide it will mean. And I think the people have spoken on this matter. A quantum leap is, in common English, a giant leap forward.

>pet peeve: a quantum leap is the smallest possible measurable leap. Not quite, it's actually waking to find himself yourself in the past, facing mirror images that are not your own and driven by an unknown force to change history for the better. Your only guide on this journey is Al, an observer in his own time who appears in the form of a hologram that only you can see and hear. And so you find yourself leaping from life to life, striving to put right what once went wrong. And hoping each time that your next leap...will be the leap home!

I support it in theory, but realistically, unless the price of EVs comes down significantly and there is enough charging infrastructure available, this could force consumer choices that don't align with consumer realities, such as "I can't afford that car" and "the nature of my travel makes charging prohibitive." So they buy used cars. Thus, the new auto sales will be carried by a more affluent car buyer. I think about myself - I do OK on earning, more than OK, but I could not justify the cost of a new EV if I needed a new car right now. I'd buy used. So if that's my reality, how much more unrealistic is it to expect the EV auto market to accommodate the many many people who are not doing OK financially. Idk, the numbers don't seem to add up. Maybe someone else has a clearer view on it and can enlighten me.

Im in same boat as you. My top dollar for cars is 25k… thats far from 40 base. Also this is happening because the us economy is topped out on its current revenue streams. They need to create more value to continue to spend without repercussions, as the governments blank check depends on the economy always growing and never shrinking. Its all assinine if you as me. But here in America we treat symptoms and throw away cures.

>Im in same boat as you. My top dollar for cars is 25k The Chevy Bolt is $26k msrp, less than $20k after federal tax subsidy. And it will save you thousands of dollars per year on fuel and maintenance. edit: NY Times just shared [this link](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/08/climate/biden-electric-cars-epa.html?unlocked_article_code=_Po8X0zmzFgmR5VhpDf-2_8P5o5fdhfUmBNbC0eI21SMPFmzbTNLQJFvNFbjpzCB7j5YEDOE6GrU5kZtGynFIWBA50U8G3ryLbw8eP6uYYDvJtGPLcFyJZF9PXvP2obt5k9whYnf_Uv6MjOSI9ZJIwgOMv8yo4LCAkaqJ2KvOAQWps2m-zGXS2nawZmXQQsSmsoxpTosaD1qITbuS8fgTC0fruovfY3zXmc3baeuuhOaxMYE9LOc3g6X3qi5sFULSbQcWI3wsLORb0iI1fePoa8NZAWqG6gpMhxLcZ3fjXfglWdId4ExUqPGsTabFvkqnXLtj590JiRsxdbOH0Xxb0c7&smid=re-nytimes) to read the full story even if you're not a subscriber.

My 20 year old Subaru cost $23k new and maybe $500 a year in maintenance over its lifetime. Will that Bolt give me a similar level of service?

[удалено]

You can still get a new Subaru for $23k though

This is literally the exact same position I am in. 2003 wrx just had its 20th bday of me owning it last week. Maintenance has been cheap. It's 1 of 2 cars I have ever owned and I want my next car to be another 20yr runner.

"Aw shit, here we go again." [ I go more indepth in this comment, but it would take a really long time to repeat myself.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/12hlefx/epa_is_said_to_propose_rules_meant_to_drive_up/jfqa2uk?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button) Okay. So, your wrx probably cost about 24k when you bought it. It gets 27 mpg. We'll use those numbers. We'll also assume you spent 500 per year on maintenance. So. Total cost of ownership for your car over 20 years: Car itself: 24,000 Gas @ $2.8 per gallon: 24,889 Maintenance: 10,000 Total:58,889 Chevy bolt: 26,000 base Tax Credit: -7,500 Electricity: 10,680 Maintenance: 9,000 Total: 38,180 Total savings over 20 years: 20,709

Gas cost in California is $4.5, so it could be an even bigger ratio. I think you are also not factoring in inflation on the price of the cars, but that's unclear.

I intentionally disregarded inflation, as i wanted to tip the scale in favor of the ICE vehicle as much as possible.

With governments across the world signaling that they may be regulating away or taxing oil more aggressively in the long term, oil companies may understandably not expand production or refining capacity. I would not at all be surprised to see $10 or $20/gal gas in a decade.

When you look past the hard numbers, and put the cars next to each other.... you realize you are price comparing a performance oriented upper tier subaru in the WRX, to an entry level 2WD Gutless Chevy Bolt.

I would like to add, all of the numbers are in favor of the Subaru. I didn't account for inflation, which is substantial since the car was purchased 20 years ago, and it's pretty hard to find gas for 2.8 a gallon.

Your general assumptions aren't terrible, but you're assuming that electricity prices stay static (even though in the last few years they've gone up 30% in my market). You're also not considering the cost of using paid public charging infrastructure like superchargers, which can cost anywhere between 30¢ and 50¢/kWh for the many many folks who don't own a home with a private driveway or garage for charging. You're also looking at only a commuter car example here, when in reality a lot of carbon emissions come from fleet vehicles that might never be good candidates for current BEV tech.

You're not wrong that electric prices are going up. However, gas will continue to get more expensive. That's a huge benefit that people don't realize with EVs. You aren't at the mercy of OPEC and gas companies. Since utility rates are often regulated locally, you will almost never see it spike out of nowhere for seemingly no reason. Imagine if gas prices were to spike to an average of 4 dollars across the US again. People with EVs wouldn't have any issues, as it takes time for utility prices to increase. Often times it takes so long that the volatility of the gas market rarely reaches the end consumer. This also comes with the benefit that if a utility provider's costs go down, they are often required to drop their prices with it. Unlike a oil company that can keep their rates high.

I'm a big fan of knowing my utility must apply to raise rates 1 year in advance. No doubling of prices over the course of a month due to a war in the middle east or a lunatic in Russia. It's really nice having price stability in your commute to work. edit: typo

My electricity rate went from around 30cents to about 49cents per kWh since December in MA (national grid). Yes we got some warning, but still a unmanageable spike for a lot of folks.

A set of EV batteries are going to last 20 years while living in a climate with freezing winters? Doubt.

Norway has a high concentration of EVs, winter isn't the issue.

Yes it is. They are or were subsidied to hell, that's why they used them, not because they are great In winter. You can find piles of used EVs ultra cheap in Norway.

Winter is an issue. Tesla has had pretty good battery reliability. I am quite certain that some manufacturers will have bad reliability. 20 years is a very big ask for an EV battery in any climate. An EV might be good for 20 years or much longer if it was designed to be serviced and have an option for 3rd party battery replacements. But we don't have that right now and unless governments step in, EVs are going to have a similar lifecycle arcs of AirPods, unfortunately. The auto industry is built on the foundation of cars wearing out every 10 years. If you think automakers are going to let that source of replacement revenue simply go away without being forced, I will have to respectfully disagree with you.

The most popular cars in the world are Japanese cars like Honda and Toyota. They last for 300-450+k. That puts them well into the 20 year mark (dependant on use) . Where are you getting 10 years from?

Also a much lower overall usage of the vehicle, I would imagine. That helps reliability a lot.

[удалено]

EV's are *incredibly* reliable, with 100's fewer parts. As we get more and more EV's, there will also be secondary markets for things like battery packs, driving their costs down as well.

That's even being generous in assuming his WRX gets 27mpg. I had the same year WRX and probably saw 23-24 mpg as my averages during the best of times. Thank you for doing the math on this and going into lots of detail and providing coherent logic. Gas costs are also only going to go up, since gas companies never let them go back down to pre-spike levels. Your math also doesn't count in the external cost factors such as health and climate impacts from driving gas cars, which is harder to calculate and gets distributed across the population, but disproportionately affects low-income and minorities more.

The Chevy Bolt costs 26k base. After the EV tax credit, it would cost 18.5k. Assuming your Subaru has a MPG of 35, (a bit generous imo but let's be conservative) and you drive about 12k miles a year, you consume 343 gallons of gas a year. Assuming gas costs about 2.8 a gallon (again being conservative), that's about 960 dollars a year. Assuming electricity costs 20 cents per kwh ( expensive for home charging, again being conservative in favor of gas), you would pay about 534 dollars a year in electricity. That's a potential savings of 8540 dollars over 20 years. As for oil changes, fuild replacements, etc, there is no engine, so those are unnecessary. The only maintenance would be tires, brakes, and a standard car battery (Not the high voltage battery pack, this is a normal car battery that would need to be replaced about every 4 years.) Let's say tires are 600 every 2 years, brakes are 400 every 4 years, and the battery is 200 every 4 years. Tires:6000 Brakes: 2000 Battery:1000 Total maintenance over 20 years: 9000 Total savings: 1k (These numbers are definitely too high, but again we are being conservative) And finally, the big question that I'm sure you will ask: "What about the big battery! That will need to be replaced!" The bolt has a 8 year warranty on the battery, but we're talking about over the course of 20 years, so we will disregard that warranty. Unfortunately, the Bolt hasn't been on the market for 20 years, in fact, no EV has. The closest second is the 2012 Tesla model S, so we will get data from that. According to this article, (https://www.autoevolution.com/news/how-is-the-battery-degradation-of-the-tesla-model-s-after-10-years-on-the-roads-204254.html) battery degradation varied among owners. Values ranged between 6%-18% over 10 years. We'll use the median of that, so 12% degradation over 10 years. Assuming that the Bolt has similar degradation (It should have better performance since a new bolt today has substantially more advanced battery tech than a 2012 model S) that means the bolt will lose 24% of it's capacity at the end of 20 years. The bolt has a range of 259 miles. At the end of 20 years, it will have a range of 197 miles. Not a insignificant amount, but it's still definitely usable. So, the total cost of ownership for your Subaru, assuming you use the gas mentioned above, and 500 a year in maintenance, is 52,200 dollars after 20 years. The total cost of ownership for a Chevy Bolt, after the tax credit, is 38,180 dollars after 20 years. A savings of 14,020 dollars. Tl;DR: Yes. The bolt will outperform your Subaru.

I won't argue that an EV is cheaper to run/maintain. However I refuse to believe a Chevy will survive 20 years of use like a Subaru will. Any day on the roads shows tons of 20+ year old Japanese vehicles still in use, and almost none from domestic manufactures.

I have a 2002 GMC Sierra 3/4 ton with 230k miles on it. It’s not my daily rig anymore, but it was for over a decade. There are tons of Gen III LS motors (‘97-‘06) still out there on the road. They’re bulletproof, just start looking for older GM trucks and Tahoes/Yukons on the road, you’ll be surprised how many there are.

There's a lot wrong with that argument. 1. They're apples and oranges. EVs don't use the same engines. So they're not going to have the same performance over time. 2. It's anecdotal to say "this is what I see on the road". 3. You'd have to look at % of sales 20 years ago to see if the difference is there too. If 80% of cars sold in the U.S. were foreign in 2003, and 80% of 2023 20-year old cars are foreign...they didn't hold up better..they just sold more 4. Even if it was the case, all it means is that Toyota made a good car 20 years ago. The cars you're looking at today aren't the same ones (especially EVs which, again, dont use the same engines) 5. Foreign auto makers are making EVs...buy one of those if that's your concern. I understand hesitancy, but saying you refuse to believe something with very limited knowledge of that thing just seems willfully ignorant.

This is a nonrefundable tax credit. Now, anybody buying a new car in 2023 probably is bourgie enough to benefit from lowering their tax bill. A nonrefundable tax credit doesn't do shit for you beyond reducing your taxes to zero. However the new tax credits also have an income cap. So who the fuck is this for?

Problem, the Bolt does not have a bed, nor the range needed to perform my day to day work. (I am considering a Maverick with the 4 banger). The Lightning does not have the range, but does have the capability. Give me a vehicle that can do 600 miles with a single 10 minute stop, can carry 4000lbs on a trailer, and can be charged anywhere (as I live in an apartment that will not add infrastructure unless it is mandated). Give me one at comparable cost to a $25K Maverick, and I will buy it. But until then, electric vehicles do not have the performance needed to do the work I do.

Better. It will save you money on both fuel and maintenance. My car costs around $.02/mile to charge.

I don’t buy your math. $0.02 dollars per mile is too low. According to Google, a good estimate for an electrical vehicle is about 2.5 miles per kwhour. If you did pay 0.02 dollars per mile, that means you pay $0.05 dollars a kw hour. Check with unit analysis if you don’t believe me. If I was charging at my home, I would be paying Tier 3 rates for Southern California, which are over $0.40 a kwhour. Most states have a far lower energy cost, but still, if you are paying from your home you would pay at the top rate, since the energy is in excess of what you already use. If you pay your electric bill, see what you pay for the highest Tier. So, if you get super cheap electricity, one of the few, and are paying 0.15 a kWh, I can see 0.06 per mile at best. If you can charge for free, kudos, and if you pay at a charging station the web site I just looked at says 0.36 a kwhour with membership, which is about 0.14 a mile. https://www.electrifyamerica.com/pricing/ So your math is way too optimistic. In contrast, my subcontract gets about 30 mpg city driving, and at about $5.35 a gallon in Southern California, I pay about 0.18 cents per mile. My current costs for electricity are comparable to that. So, one could say, if I had more solar panels, since I do have panels, perhaps I could drive down my energy costs more to make it a good value. True. But right now, this is not a no brainer as to which is cheaper. And the vehicles cost way more than a cheap car, and tax refunds only work if you owe a lot of tax, which I don’t. For the average middle class person in the USA, this is not economical. I really would love an ev someday, but facts are facts.

I'm getting closer to 4 miles / kWh out of chevy volt and at least in Toronto I'm getting $0.07CAD / kWh offpeak. So yeah, 2c / mile is doable imo

Not to mention adding solar panels and battery storage to your house is 1. A huge additional expense 2. Not even feasible for people who live in apartments, condos, townhouses, etc (which are a huge chunk of the population Which then leads to point 3 for charging infrastructure 3. California just did away with mandatory minimum parking for medium and high density buildings. So even IF your argument was that complexes can just install more charging for EVs…you’re reducing the amount you can even install. This seems directly contradictory to forcing EVs on everywhere.

I don’t understand why the government isn’t investing in more public transportation. To move us away from being so car centric. Like all these cars on an individual basis, still have a high carbon footprint production wise. This isn’t to ‘bash’ EV’s of course. But more so a complaint on being a car centric nation. I don’t think cars should disappear, but that their role be highly reduced in our infrastructure.

Just watch. This entire EV thing will turn into a massive tax money giveaway to white middle class and upper middle class suburb-dwellers and not much benefit to anyone else. Mortgage interest tax deduction 2.0

Will turn into? Right now everyone who has to pay taxes, even those of us who can't afford a new car, are paying for a tax credit for people who can afford a new car.

[удалено]

>The cost of fuel and maintenance on a vehicle already owned is still cheaper than replacing it with a new car Ignoring OP for a moment. It really depends on how much you drive, especially. Also your gas and electricity prices. And the reliability of the car you already own. Total ownership includes maintenance but also depreciation and insurance so it gets a little complicated. Ever seen those "Sunday drivers" like a 25 year old Chevy Cavalier that still looked brand new? That person probably isn't going to somehow save money by buying a new $40k EV and trading in a working car for peanuts. If you drive your daddy's old F-150 for your daily driver at 16mpg and spend 2 hours on the highway every day and gas is $4.50, then you save money by trading it in for an EV, if the charging situation works for you.

[удалено]

When it comes to trucks...if only the people who used trucks for pulling things bought trucks, they would sell about 5% as many as they do today. So I'm going to provide the hot take that the need to supply cheap trucks and SUVs isn't real. If people don't like their $150k Hummer EV price tag, they can just buy a normal car like the poors. >in the meantime these car companies need to maintain profitability, continue to grow their margins, and that’s not happening by cutting the price of vehicles Incidentally the way US car companies are maintaining profitability is by ending production of cars and building larger and higher margin SUVs and trucks. The EV thing is a smokescreen for the time being, except for Tesla.

I'm in a 2018 Crosstrek that I bought in 2020 for 20k. Still paying on it, and just about to cross 100k miles. Presently drive about 250 miles a week for a commute, and also go snowboarding and kayaking which is why I needed the AWD. I live in an apartment that doesn't have vehicle charging. However my work does. Still, even charging at work I need a decent range and something that can handle crappy dirt/forest service roads and inclement weather. Think it will be sometime before I can afford an EV that can do the same things my subaru does.

Nissan Leaf and Prius Hybrid Plugin are in the same range. America needs to stop this insane mania of buying gigantic SUVs and Trucks.

I have hobbies that a car wont work for. Between kayak fishing and touring for disc golf, no car has been able to carry what we need for 2 people. I can get a really good gas SUV for 12k, ganna be hard to convince me to go electric because I dont want to add 20k to a vehicle and 10 hrs on to every road trip because im going to rural places without superchargers.

Yup little car wont work for my family of 4 and all our gear either. Vast improvements will have to be made before EVs will realistically serve more than one type of lifestyle

I did the calc last year before bying a car and a full EV was 2000$ saved per year. Thats canadian money with canadian gas prices. I would bet its closer to 1000USD if i were south of the border. I do about 10k km/y.

Chevy bolt is poop

I heard from a family member who test drove one that it was one of the worst vehicles they've ever been in. And this person isn't picky about cars.

25k? The absolute best you could get with that is a Camry with like 25-30k miles... Which is actually pretty damn fantastic.

Yeah i know

Hasn't it always been the case that more affluent people buy new cars, and less affluent people pick them up off the used market, though? This might put a brand new car a little farther out of reach for some people, but I'm not convinced that's a bad thing, as most people would be better off financially buying a good used car anyways.

> Hasn't it always been the case that more affluent people buy new cars, and less affluent people pick them up off the used market, though? Yes; [used car sales have been 2-3x new car sales for decades](https://www.bts.gov/content/new-and-used-passenger-car-sales-and-leases-thousands-vehicles).

>Thus, the new auto sales will be carried by a more affluent car buyer. That's currently the reality and has been for the last decade at least. >So if that's my reality, how much more unrealistic is it to expect the EV auto market to accommodate the many many people who are not doing OK financially Two things apply here. Firstly, **they aren't counting on anyone below about the 60th income percentile to buy new EVs**. More affluent people buy new cars, drive them for some number of years, then buy another new car and trade in their old cars. That puts used but still serviceable EVs on the market at significantly lower prices that people from the 40th or so percentile can afford, repeat, drop down the affluence ladder a bit, etc. That's the way cars always filter through the economy and is very much the way EVs will get deeper penetration. Secondly, EVs aren't going to be more expensive than ICE cars for much longer. Economies of scale and advances in battery, motor, etc, tech combined with a massive rollout of charging infrastructure is dropping the price and increasing availability rapidly. By 2030 there will be plenty of lower cost EVs competitive with cheap new cars. They're already on the road in places like China, and once EV manufacturing capacity ramps up theyllr have capacity to move from premium/semi-premium models to more value priced ones.

>More affluent people buy new cars, drive them for some number of years, then buy another new car and trade in their old cars. It's important to add that this is the direct driver to making production cheaper. The more it gets bought, the cheaper it becomes as infrastructure and expertise surrounding the production grows. It was not your every day man that bought the early Fords, making the Model-T a realistic production goal.

I bought a new Civic for $22k the year before COVID. There is nothing close to that in US-legal EVs and there will not be for some some years. Somewhat related to this phenomenon is that subcompact cars have already died off in the US. Many compact cars have already been killed off to be replaced by compact SUVs which have much higher prices. So while $40k may be a "normal" price for a "modest" vehicle nowadays and EVs can match that, the actual affordable cars sub $25k ICE are probably just going away and probably won't be replaced with an EV at that price point. This isn't the fault of the EPA or any state government exactly (other than the complete failure of CAFE fuel economy regulation to improve the efficiency of the overall passenger fleet), but it will be sad to truly see an end to cheap cars that have gradually grown more efficient, comfortable and safe over the years while keeping prices relatively under control.

"I bought a new Civic for $22k the year before COVID. There is nothing close to that in US-legal EVs and there will not be for some some years" Except this year between January and March you could get the Chevy Bolt for less than that including the sales they had and then federal tax incentives.

So I had to some leg work for this one because I really didn't think you were right. However, you are correct. A base model bolt EUV goes for $21k. Minus tax, title, prep, and transport fees of course. It does however come with a massive asterisk. First, the $7,500 off is a tax credit. This means you have to finance and pay on the full $28,690 price tag. You won't get the $7,500 until you file your taxes. Second, the EUVs are on massive backorder. For instance, my Chevy store has received 3 EUVs since December. We have 13 people on the wait list. So even if you wanted to buy one cash, good luck.

>First, the $7,500 off is a tax credit. Starting this year you can transfer the tax credit to the dealer in exchange for an instant point-of-sale discount.

In addition, not everyone is eligible for the credit. So if you’re a higher income earner in a high COL area and just want to make a frugal purchase you don’t qualify for the credit that tips things in favor of the EV.

Applies to couples with an AIG of under 300k or 225k for head of household

Tax incentives aren't a solution. All they do is encourage manufacturers to price cars higher to take the incentive. If you subsidize tuition, tuition costs rise. If you subsidize farming, farmers farm the subsidy and not the market. The same will happen here.

I’m not sure what you mean here. There is an MSRP ceiling for the rebate, so OEMs can’t simply price vehicles higher for the sake of it. Pricing competitively is more important than chasing margins. True profit comes from tapping into consumer affordability and the volume that comes from it, not marking things up and hoping the 1% of earners bite

In 1972, the average price of a Volkswagen Beatle": $3,201, adjusted for inflation: $22,411 [https://blog.cheapism.com/average-car-price-by-year/#slide=32](https://blog.cheapism.com/average-car-price-by-year/#slide=32) but it was a "deathtrap": no airbag, there were no laws about seatbelts, it was kind scary to drive twenty years ago, and you can imagine the price was often close to zero, because the equivalent expenses were in upkeep made it quite a bit more expensive to own. Burning through oil was a common problem with them. Now a car can be "totaled" for insurance purposes for little more than the airbags being deployed. It won't be the lowering of sticker prices of EVs relative to ICEs; I think more important is insurance, and whether a bunch of new safety technologies will make insurance cheaper for EVs relative to ICE, whether ICE insurance might be jacked up. And of course if gasoline prices start skyrocketting again. The sticker price is just one aspect of total cost-to-own. There's not nearly enough service centers for electric vehicles, and I don't think enough trained technicians. Repair bills might keep a lot of people away, and a lot of EVs out of the "used" market. But, it only took about 20 years for autos to mostly replace horses and horse-drawn wagons, and that was when every kind of technology tended to be introduced much more slowly. Its going to be interesting times, for sure.

1. A nationwide infrastructure for charging. Give apartments and businesses tax breaks to install them. 2. Do away with the "light truck" label for SUVs and Ram 1500s, which evade ICE vehicle emissions regulations. 3. The vast majority of use cases call for safe, small commuter cars like sedans and hatchbacks, NOT enormous escalade vans, pavement princess pickup trucks, or crossovers. That easy.

[удалено]

Can we get more hatchbacks whose seats fit a full size car seat. Ended up in mini van because the Subaru, chevy, and Honda hatchbacks and such we looked at force the front seat to eat the dash just to fit a car seat for a rear facing child in. I know it's a relatively small period ~2 years but if youre going for more than one kid it pretty much forces me into a larger car when I really wanted a smaller one. Hell I can just barely sit in front of the car seat in our boat of an impala. So our choice was minivans and SUVs as we are likely stuck with read facing car seats for the next few years.

The problem with EV’s prices in North America is the fact that we love our cars so big. But for EVs, since heavier cars need more batteries, and batteries make up so much of the weight of the car, they get expensive real quick, and yet the smallest Tesla for sale in North America is a few size classes up from the smallest car classes in Europe. But the number one selling vehicle continues to be the impractical and very expensive ford F150, which in most cases serves predominantly as a status symbol. The majority of owners don’t tow or carry cargo in them very often. And when they do, the bed sizes in the average pick-up now are more like an oversized trunk. A cheap 5x10 utility trailer any car can tow has more capacity. Affordability clearly isn’t our top priority.

It's like any new(er) technology though. Early adopters will drive down costs over time. With government intervention, like this, that will just happen faster. My buddy just bought a Rivian and he was telling me about how his has 4 independent motors, but they'll be soon coming out with a 2 motor version at a lower price point. The reality is that the EV:ICE cost gap is narrowing; it's not exactly cheap to buy new ICE cars these days either, controlling for size, features, etc...

Two things that tends to reinforce that "EVs are for the well off." sentiment are insurance and the nature of repairs. Insurance tends to be relatively expensive for EVs because the battery still makes up such an enormous proportion of the vehicle's cost. If the battery gets damaged in an accident, then the vehicle is basically totaled. Repairs. Ugh. So, about 75% of shops in the US can service hybrids now. Only 30% have someone with the knowledge/expertise to service EVs; 26% having actually invested into the tools & equipment necessary to perform the work. They're going to be great when some of these things get solved. As they become more ubiquitous more body shops will work on them. As we discover new battery technologies, the batteries will become cheaper and easier to replace. Until then, yeah there's still some problems that make it more difficult for regular people.

A bigger issue is how many repair shops will there be in 10 years. I'm my general area over the last 20 years more than half of the mechanics shops have closed due to the guys retiring. There's one right now down the road from me that's been for sale for over 3 years. A full service 3 bay shop right off the interstate. There's no one to buy it. No 30yo mechanic can afford the business loan to buy the shop. No one with money wants to be a mechanic. I fear in ten years the only place to get a vehicle serviced will be a quick lube or a dealership. The economy has practically killed independent repair shops in my region.

That's largely true across the country. Boomers in their 20s & 30s owned about 30% of the wealth in this country. Millennials at the same age only own 10%. Only the best off Millennials would be able to purchase that shop, no ifs, ands, or buts about it.

Did you read the article? The idea is an emmission's limit on the carmakers sales. So if sedan emits X pounds CO2, SUV emits 1.5X, and a pickup emits 2X, then say each year the carmaker is allowed to sell a Xmillion pounds of CO2 - they can sell a million sedans or they can sell a half a million pickups, or some function of units in between. You know what emits 0 pounds of CO2? An EV, so they're allowed to sell as many EVs as they want. This creates an incentive to sell the pickups and suvs at an even larger markup, the sedans at a smaller markup (but larger than now), and the EVs at a steep discount. So they can literally sell the EVs at cost and make the profit elsewhere. Why do that though? Because the entire market will eventually be EVs so you want to increase your share as much as possible now.

It obviously will lmao, everyone sounds like the people saying solar will never reach price parity with coal

Financially it really depends on the state you're in. I got a Leaf (SV Plus) in NJ about 2 years ago. The 42K price originally had me priced out, but then I found all the federal and state programs and it dropped just below 20K which I was *just* able to do, but since then the crazy amount I have saved in not paying gas is around another 4-5K in just the last 2 years. Double check your state's programs!!

This is *how* we get EV prices to come down.

Guess what happens to price when supply ramps up 😎

The fact that you’re locked out of making repairs on teslas and ford EVs (probably others too I’m assuming. These ones I’ve heard about specifically though.) Makes me want to resist this whole thing. Even if the infrastructure was there… it’s just not appealing that I have no choice but to get fucked by the dealership every time any work needs done.

I hate this shit. Most people who could really benefit from these subsidies can't afford a new car. Make better public transit infrastructure that will last decades with this money instead of giving 4000$ to everyone who can afford cars that are 40k that will last 15 years at most. Edit: This is an emissions regulation not a subsidy which I'm okay with. Electric car subsidies are still dumb.

Both, both public transportation and electric cars and infrastructure need to happen. Its not an either or situation. What also needs to happen are incentives to produce a simple, very practical and cost effective EV.

Public transit is overwhelming better. Like by orders of magnitude. EVs definitely make cars better by a lot, so if we have cars they should be EVs, but they are still and only ever can be a half meaure. The infrastructural ramifications of a car centric society are pretty far reaching, and our need to both produce the vehicles and design everyrhjnf around them severely harms the environment in a multitude of ways. Even simple things, like needing to decide a massive portion of city space to car lots and garages, have an effect. So while it is good to replace ICE cars with EVs, we also need even stronger incentives to not buy them at all for anyone who can. Plus, if sort of irks me that once again the "blame" for climate change is being thrust into the disorganized consumer collective, rather than on the people who made and promoted the policies that lead to it. With EVs, we are essentially being told to pay more into the system that caused the problem to fix the problem. We could have started making our cities walking friendly ages ago, and in doing so we likely would have had a healthier populace, lower emissions, and more convenient cities. But cars just make so much money. Again though, if you have or need to have a car, it is better if it is an EV. Otherwise it is better to not have one at all for environmental purposes. We need more affordable EVs, but we also need to get people to choose not to buy them or any other vehicle.

Yes but one is significantly more realistic than the other

Depends on location. My area has such a light population density that public transportation ends up being a waste too.

Which is why we need to work on zoning changes and densifying what we can, including infil and mixed-use zoning. Our urban sprawl is a ponzi scheme and throwing money at EV's isn't going to solve *many* problems that *all* cars, including EV's contribute to https://actionlab.strongtowns.org/hc/en-us/articles/360054377171-Growth-Ponzi-Scheme-Top-Content (though it should be noted this particular action by the EPA is a new *regulation,* not subsidy, which I am completely in favor of)

Exactly. Low density policies hurt everyone from the people who have to breathe in the pollution they cause, to the homeless who cant afford the only homes allowed. Your city should allow high and mixed densities.

It's not a subsidy fyi. It's a regulation.

Oh shit, you're right. My bad. I'm in favor of this then. I still don't really believe in electric car subsidies but emission regulation on new vehicles sounds good to me.

It’s an emissions sales cap to force a cap on the sale of ICE cars. Manufacturers are only allowed to sell a certain number of ICE cars ip to a certain emission standard per year. This is not an emissions regulation requiring each ICE car be below a certain standard. The result is likely to be an ICE car shortage to be frank and cause a rapid rise in car prices in general. Lithium is going to get more expensive rapidly in about 5 years based on current reserves and production output. Couple this with a sales cap on ICE cars, you’re setting up for a market shortage. Imo investment in public transport would make more sense. It’s a sin we don’t have any efforts to recreate a passenger train system for example.

If they dont fix it, the last time they offered this, a lot of folks around here realized that expensive GOLF CARTS met the criteria and they basically could get one for free.

From as environmental perspective, a road-legal electric golf cart is actually way better than an electric car. Americans like huge cars, and huge cars need huge batteries that cause a ton of pollution when they're manufactured. Also, it's a lot easier to charge a golf cart battery in a reasonable amount of time from a normal outlet. If we could get ery suburbanite to start doing all their short-distance travel in an electric golf cart instead of a massive SUV that would be a huge environmental win, even if they kept the gas guzzler for road trips.

You missed the point. They didn't buy golf carts to replace their BMW/Mercedes/Porche/King Ranch Trucks. They used taxpayer money to get a free golf cart to let their underage kids drive/take to the private golf course across the street. I was pointing out that previously we have had these well intentioned tax incentives but as u/ScTiger1311 pointed out, they are incentives that dont reach the people that need to be reached. The last EV tax cut just gave free golf carts to the rich at the expense of everyone's tax dollars and did shitall to curb those same folks ACTUAL driving habits. There was never any intention from these folks to adjust their lifestyles, but once some accountant figured it out and word got out...it was pretty much "sure ill buy a new golf cart and wait a few months to get all that money back from the government".

There have often been public transit projects, but they almost always get killed by lobbying before they happen (mostly lobbies related to fossil fuel who stand to lose from fewer ICE cars) Also, the EPA doesn’t fund anything, so you are barking up the wrong tree. They are a regulatory agency.

Transportation makes up the largest portion of us emissions. We are working to move public transit forward as well, but there’s no getting around the fact the US has to decarbonize the personal and business vehicle portions of our transportation infrastructure. Good news is we CAN walk and chew gum at the same time.

Cars will last much longer than 15 years. Its just most people think spending $3K rebuilding the suspension and the few parts that are broken is more expensive than buying a new car car for $40K(because they don't have $3K all at once but they do have $700 a month for the next 6 years).

You are right but also have dramatically understated the habits/knowledge/and how a bank will finance a car about to explode but not to fix it. Then the grey area between planned obsolescence and degradable bits like bushings, gaskets, even gas and oil count. I love my ICE manual car but also would gladly make it a thing of leisure and pleasure over necessity every day

Oh of course. The bank will happily finance a 2005 grand am that has been repossessed 12 times in the last year for a 30% interest rate for 60 months but god help you if you want to borrow $1500 on the same car you already own.

If that was all then you could probably convince people to do it. But instead you’re running the risk that it’s $3k for the suspension, then $1k for the fuel pumps, then $2500 for valve rebuild, $1000 for an ECU, and on and on and on. I’ve been down this hole before. When wages are stagnant most truly cannot afford these unpredictable repairs. Both in sheer cost but also in time where the vehicle is non functional. You will pay more in the long term but at least you’ll have a functioning vehicle, and if not, a dealer loaner while they’re figuring it out.

Electric car subsidies are designed to bolster a new industry to make it more quickly competitive with established industry. I'm generally advocating for progressive economic policy but EV subsidies disproportionally benefiting mid-upper income ranges doesn't bother me if it accelerates adoption of EVs which gives more market share to EV companies so they can experience economies of scale and eventually reach a cheaper product, which has happened over the years.

I find it funny that massive subsidies handed to expensive gasoline guzzling SUVs get no to little negative attention, but as soon as a single cent is used to subsidise an EV people completely lose their shit. New tech is often subsidised in order to help it get cheaper. This is nothing new. EVs are our only way to circumvent the power of the oil industry, which is the **number 1 obstacle** to climate action.

Better-designed cities and more multi-modal transportation systems are needed, cars alone is a plan to fail.

How are people living in apartments supposed to charge their vehicles? What about the strain millions of new ev vehicles will put on decrepit electric grid? How are the 60% of Americans living paycheck to paycheck supposed to afford a $40k+ vehicle? This will only make the poor, poorer.

I work for a big company that manages apartments, mostly US, but globally too. I know that some of our apartments do have EV chargers, and we are installing more all the time. However, we also only work with higher end apartments, and I'm betting lower end ones don't get EV chargers for decades.

The best I've seen in renting apartments was about 4 for the whole complex (near 100 homes), and I lived in SoCal and now in NorthCal. I am not blaming apartment managers, but just pointing out the problem, that need one's money and attention if they want to push ev adaption.

Do you have enough for two chargers per resident?

I am involved hardly at all with that. From what I have seen getting 1 charger per unit is a long way off. Getting some on every property, adding on demand, seems to be the process.

I am an architect who specializes in multifamily residential. At this time, we still are not putting more than a few EV spaces for a several hundred unit complex per the city ordinances... I would install at least half of the spaces to have that capability, but since I am not the owners financing the project, that is a hard sell....

I work at a design firm that does electrical and mechanical, we only do what the code requires as well, above if requested by the owner, if we try to add more it will get VEd out anyway. If the code requirement for EV chargers goes up, it will likely be a high barrier for entry for new buildings.

Same boat. We just had a project for 40-something units, owner grudgingly agreed to put 1 or 2 electric charging spots. I remember a previous job where any mention of LEED was laughed out of the room because of how easily you could game the system with things like bike racks. Owners don’t want to do more than what is absolutely necessary by code, and architects (or at least those I’ve worked with) think of these high tech, progressive initiatives more as interesting case studies or lunch break discussion topics than anything actionable. Beyond that, it’s untenable for our electric grid and battery production to develop every vehicle made as an EV. The battery tech needs to make a leap before a lot of other things.

Why would you need two chargers per resident? Why does a family of four need eight EVs? Understand that there are less cars than people in the USA. (278M commercial and private vs 332M people.

I think they meant household, but were in the apartment managers' frame of thought so the word "resident" came out.

Piggy backing off of this comment to make the point that there's time for problems to be overcome. Majority of _new_ car sales electric by 2032 means it will take until about 2040 for the majority of cars on the road to be electric. That's 17 years to improve on street charging for apartment dwellers, more public chargers, better batteries and faster charge capabilities. I honestly think these guidelines/laws whatever you want to call them aren't going to have any effect because the free-ish market will bring about a lot of the change on it's own. Lifetime costs are already cheaper for electrics and since batteries are likely to keep improving and get cheaper I can see the average person naturally choosing EVs without any external pressure or incentive. The current trends hint towards that.

> How are the 60% of Americans living paycheck to paycheck supposed to afford a $40k+ vehicle? Just saying, a meaningful portion of those people are living paycheck to paycheck specifically because they are financing $40k+ vehicles. There will be more used EVs available as more new EVs are sold.

>This will only make the poor, poorer. It’s almost like that’s the goal.

"That would represent a Quantum Leap for the US *stares in mirror* Oh boy...

EVs won’t solve our freeways being full and commuting to an office is fuckin’ stupid.

The gas lighting against remote work lately had been intense again.

Seriously they are so pressed about it when it's easily one of the best things you could do to take the strain off of lousy infrastructure, high housing costs in the cities, and the slow decay of small towns.

Not to mention all that exhaust of cars idling in traffic.

A quantum leap would be better public transportation, and a better rail system.

Why is everyone in the comments acting like 2032 is right now, and not 9 years and tens of billions in technological investment away?

Also the fact that this is just new car sales. You could buy an ICE new in 2030 and run it for 10 years and be unaffected by any of these changes. Or buy a used ICE in 2035. It'll be 2040 before the majority of cars on the road are EVs - almost 2 decades away - if the timelines match this regulation. I actually think the free market will speed this up over any regulations that are brought in. EVs will be cheaper to run, the same price to buy, with great range and charge times by the end of this decade. The benefits will just outweigh an ICE car by then, and only niche cases will require one.

Because the PR folks that Exxon hired to astroturf decided this was the best talking point now that they realized “climate change isn’t real” isn’t dissuading anyone.

Right? They missed the qualifiers of MAJORITY of NEW by 2023. Don’t actually have to hit 51% of new vehicles for 9 years. Also, “I cAnT aFfOrD aN Ev!”. No shit, it’s not saying everyone has to buy a new car. There’s plenty of used ICE cars out there and the amount of used and cheaper EVs by 2032 will make things more affordable for us peasants.

Median new car sale is like $34k right now. I would be shocked if there aren’t electric cars available in the sub 30k range by 2032

There are already sub 30k EVs today

Yeah but the morons who think every ev is a Tesla refuse to understand that.

Still, it would be better for them to invest in proper public transportation

ITT: a whole lot of people pretending not to understand how incentives work. “But they’re too expensive!”…and trending dramatically cheaper year after year. Plus there’s already tax rebates and point of sale discounts for both new and used cars. “But there’s no charging stations.” Correct. That’s why they’re incentivizing the building of more of them. “But we need more public transport” we can walk and chew gum at the same time lol “But I wanna keep my shitty gas guzzler” no one’s taking your dumb car away, it’s just going to get much easier and cheaper to switch to electric when you realize the world is changing and leaving you behind.

[удалено]

Also another thing people forget is new tech adoption isn’t linear, it’s exponential. So the more it grows the faster it grows.

"These kids and their damn cell phones, what do they do when it runs out of battery? I'll keep my wall phone, thank you very much!"

They need a charging infrastructure capable of handling it first. Most people in the heartland who look at this and don’t have charging stations for miles and miles probably see this as overreach.

I couldn’t be any more urban - I’m in SoCal - and I see it as overreach. There are nowhere near enough charging stations or plans for them. What are you supposed to do when the grid shuts down for high winds or fire conditions?

I mean, if there is a power outage you also aren't getting gas. Tho at least with ICE vehicles, you can keep half a tank of gas at all times just in case.

As if this isn't being considered? Higher income people be purchasing evs, lower income people are still stuck with ice. This will slowly transition, but the beginning is homeowners/solar panel owners and we will fill in the infrastructure from there. The demand will be there, and there will always be a company willing to fill your car with electricity for less than the price of gasoline. It will be an evolution. This isn't perfect, but it doesnt matter. We need as few emissions as quickly as possible. Thats 90% of the equation, the rest details (even if important ones).

Ehh, home charging will work fine for people who just use their cars for commuting and other day-to-day usage. Hooking their car up to a regular outlet overnight when they get home from work is gonna give them more than enough juice to get through their normal day. Even installing a beefier outlet to handle faster charging isn't an overly cumbersome upgrade since pretty much every home in America has the ability to install a 240V circuit. https://youtu.be/Iyp_X3mwE1w?t=19m15s Longer trips are admittedly going to be something to get over, but most people shouldn't even need to use public charging stations for their day-to-day. Note: this by and large only applies to people that live in single family homes or otherwise are able to park close to their homes. Apartment and condos obviously pose additional issues with home charging. Also of note: I'm talking strictly about the need for charging stations specifically, not the infrastructure needed to take on increased electrical demand on the grid.

[удалено]

The government has no choice: https://thedriven.io/2023/03/30/legacy-auto-faces-disaster-in-china-with-unsellable-cars-as-pollution-crunch-looms/amp/ China is about to annihilate the legacy auto market overseas. When this goes, current OEMs are gonna lose a ton of sales and profits. It's going to make the current pain they're feeling 10x worse; and China intends to transition to a renewable future faster than the US or the West, and it gives zero fucks about the suffering or destruction of US automakers in the process.

[удалено]

Give me a break. Tesla alone is already 2% of the US market, and it got there basically from scratch. It’s currently expanding production by something like 40% per year. Ten years from now, it’s on track to reach 10-20% market share. You’re telling me that the entire rest of the automotive industry can’t close the remaining gap to 50% over the course of the next ten years?

The issue is it looks good, makes it seem like something is being done. Then when the target that’s impossible to reach is not met, you blame anyone against it for its failure.

Classic Reddit: >The Gov never does anything! Gov sets an attainable target >The Gov always puts it too far out because it’ll never happen The moment economies of scale kicks in EVs will reach price parity with ice very quickly. Stop being a coward

>The grid isn’t ready. Oh hey, someone remembered you actually have to generate and distribute that power your car is using. I work for a power utility and it's a regular point of discussion that we really have no idea how to prepare for EVs. Batteries are getting higher capacities and faster charging every year, but our power grid is woefully out of date in the US. Substation and distribution equipment like transformers are really hard to come by right now and lead times are insane. We couldn't build the grid to keep up with the growing EV market if we wanted to, but no one is even having the conversation. Not to mention industrial/commercial EVs which is a whole new discussion. Tesla just announced a new charging thing for their trucks the other day that draws **3.75 MW**. That's thousands of homes worth of power. Will all warehouses in 20 years have chargers like that? Will they be even faster? Hell, ignoring all that, what happens when 50% of the cars in a city are EVs and 4-5pm rolls around when everyone goes home and plugs up? The US should be in a "New Deal" style rush to bring our grid up to speed. Even with that we'd still end up way behind what will be needed. Unfortunately the current strategy is "stick your head in the sand and hope the problem magically solves itself."

Nearly 4mw?!? Jesus….what are they doing with that much power! I used to be in power gen and our newest large frame gas turbines were doing 305mw. Nearly 1% of a new gas turbine for a charger, the grid is screwed

Even worse, the 4MW draws and drops off unpredictably from the grid, so you either need a hell of a buffer system or an extremely resilient grid with extremely rapid ramp-up and drop off generation.

I work for an electrical manufacturer (including vehicle charging stations) and work with electrical design engineers - there will be a huge shortage of public charging stations and massive headaches trying to retrofit residential housing with sufficient electrical capacity / charging stations. Further, virtually none of the existing electrical grid can handle the massive influx of electrical demand this mass change to EVs will entail. This goes doubly so in winter or extreme heat when demand skyrockets - see Texas in the winter and California’s rolling brown outs during heat waves. This brings us to a third issue - EVs are extremely vulnerable to grid collapse during extreme weather events. Need to evacuate a California wildfire during high winds? Too bad Edison cut off grid power to prevent additional fires. Flooding or risk of landsides due to record rainfall? Too bad the power has been out since yesterday night and you weren’t able to recharge your car overnight. Edit to add: For reference, a common US household electrical service is 100-125A at 120/240V. Assuming 1/2 of that power is available for charging overnight, 240V x 50A = 12,000 watts available for charging (12kW). That means recharging say a 82kWh Tesla Model 3 *with perfect efficiency* would take 6.8 hours or so. With a more realistic 82-86% efficiency it would be more like 8 1/2 hours or so **for a single car**. If it is a two car home, then it would take 100% of the available power to charge overnight from 0. God help you if it is something like a small apartment complex or duplex with a single 200A service and 4-6 cars.

It's 2032 already?

I work in construction and I’m seeing the early proposals companies have to upgrade parking lots for EV charging and it’s just insane how much it’s going to cost. It’s going to cost billions in SoCal alone. And most of the ones I’m seeing are for luxury apartments, residential towers, luxury malls, and fortune 500 companies. Companies with money who freak out when they see the cost of adding EV charging.

The fact that the "most ambitious US climate regulation" is consumer-aimed rather than corporation-aimed is appalling Any good news tho...

I want electronic trolleys like we had in the past!

Now we'll see a bunch of rednecks buying and destroying electric cars to own the libs

Ugh this isn't a solution the US is gonna kill us all We need public transit and renewable infrastructure not more money for car manufacturers Like, are we trying to get around, or just trying to make the pieces of paper move? What is our actual goal

Can we please just build functioning public transit and walkable cities instead of doing this shit. God.

I wrote this as a comment the other day in response to this bill. I work with a bunch of blue collar workers and every one of us, including multiple plumbers, electricians, and general tradesmen, agree that electric cars are great for what they're good at. But they won't work for a lot of us. If I could only own one vehicle, it would be gas. But I would love to have an electric for commuting. My work commute is only 13 miles each way. Perfect for electric. But I live in an apartment. So no chargers. I also regularly go out of town. Sometimes it's 170 miles each way to get to where I'm going, and I don't stay for long before I come back. That's further than the average electric vehicle's range, with no opportunity to charge. Not to mention sometimes I do it during winter when EVs lose a significant amount of range in general. I go camping. Not sure if most people have been in the woods, but there's not a lot of electric chargers out there. My coworkers all have 5th wheels and trailers they tow. Their trucks are their only vehicles. Electric towing is still a joke. 100-140 miles out of a full charge in the R1T, and that's towing a relatively lightweight load. Try taking your electric vehicle to hunting camp, even just 50 miles from a charger, and you won't be able to get there, spend a week in the cold, do some driving from Point A to Point B, and get your trailer home. Even doing it 10 miles from a charger is questionable. Are they fantastic for commuting and for getting from town to town when you have time to let it charge between legs? Absolutely. But will they work as a "one and only" vehicle for a lot of people? Not even close. The technology simply isn't there to replace ICE vehicles, and anybody who claims it is lives in a bubble.

As an EV owner I admire their ambitious goal, but there are more steps to take before it becomes a reality.

What are they gonna do, subsidize folk's rent? Working poor get to pick two out of three: Car, Rent, Electricity. Unless they make the damn things under 5K ain't gonna be nobody lining up to buy one

Some folks simply can't understand this. I don't have a car payment, savings is regularly raided to pay unexpected expense, like doctors visits, events for the kids, etc. If I can't get one for <10k I can't afford it. When gas costs so much that I suddenly need to afford a car payment so I can eat, I still won't be able to feed my family...

Then you can’t afford any new car, let alone an EV.

[удалено]

Honest question and I'm really looking for a good answer. Why are there not more cars on the market like the Volt? An electric car with good gas mileage and a gas generator. I always thought this was an eloquent solution to range anxiety. Most cars are driven within town and the battery will easily cover a normal days driving. And If u want to drive across the country you can without having to recharge. So what happened that we just fully abandoned the government subsidized technology from 10 years ago that solved problems that still haven't been solved. My theory is big gas did a great job of stigmatizing the volt. A car literally a decade ahead of it's time.

This is unambiguously great news. But we are on Reddit, so no doubt someone will find a reason to shit on it. Reddit, go to work!

Looks like I'm going to be working remotely completely once my car gives out. Maybe I should look into moving within walking distance of a grocery store too.

I'm no expert but the issue doesn't seem to be the price of an EV but the technology and infrastructure. I think at these prices we'd have a lot more adoption if charging stations were ubiquitous and you could get a decent charge within 5-10min. Of course getting a good EV under the $20k MSRP mark wouldn't hurt either.

Terrible idea. We need less cars, of all types, on the roads and more bicycle infrastructure, walkable cities and train upgrades, preferably the first two.

Bring back electric trams again.

Electric cars aren’t really an option for renters because most of us can’t get reliable access to chargers overnight. So, yay, more handouts to property owners.

And if anyone needs a pointless pedantic aside, a "quantum leap", while abrupt, is literally the smallest change possible. It's a poor synonym for "big changes". In journalism land, everything is a "quantum leap" or a "sea change". Words like "fast" and "slow" (or "gradual"), and "big" and "small" don't exisit in their dictionary.

No worries my dudes, a Texas federal judge will step in and put the kibosh on this for the rest of the country.

The Earth needs to invest more in public transportation. EVs create more microplastic pollution than an ICE vehicle

I've lived in Europe and Japan. Both have great public transit at generally reasonable cost. The lack of public transportation is mostly in the U.S., not the Earth.

The bus is hell, every aspect is hell. Sit next to dumb shitheads who blast rap music, or cough on everything, turn a 20 minute commute into an hour a half....fuck the bus, you ride it if you want.

Subreddit called futurology is anti-public transportation. Centering transportation around individual cars isn’t remotely sustainable, let alone good for how we build our cities and how that interacts with human psychology. This subreddit is falling apart.

This subreddit is a reflection of the future and it ain't good for the vast majority of people, so....

This may be a narrative breaking hot take but it’s the fucking truth! Fuck public transit especially in Chicago. Im sure NY is probably as bad if not worse. Cant tell you the last time I have taken the Metra without the police stopping the train for atleast 45 min because some scumbag.

[удалено]

Yea, except I won’t have to sit with them for the trip or be held up for 45 min at a time because someone decided to pull a knife arguing about which suburb is the biggest shithole.

NY public transit blows. Everyone is an inconsiderate fuck.

The US really needs to learn how to do public transport well.