Warning: Some posts on this platform may contain adult material intended for mature audiences only. Viewer discretion is advised. By clicking ‘Continue’, you confirm that you are 18 years or older and consent to viewing explicit content.
Car producers are begging for years for clear guidelines so they can develop solid plans instead of having to speculate how long they need to keep ICEs in parallel.
I don’t quite understand this. Nobody’s forcing manufacturers to keep producing ICE cars. They could just say ‘screw it’ and decide on their own to only build BEV.
They could just say ‘screw it’ and decide on their own to only build BEV.
And then they would go bankrupt pretty fast. EVs are more expensive and don’t have a massive infrastructure to refuel them, build over decades (also still heavily subsidised indirectly).
The company saying “screw it” today just cut their available market down to a fraction of its former size, down to the small amount of “we have money to spare anyway and already have our own home and garage to refuel”-people. The majority can’t afford to buy a car for twice the price because it’s better for the environment. And they don’t even have a spot to park them other than on the side of the street (maybe some countries are better than others in that regard but here having to charge at the few publically available chargers doubles the cost compoared to just plugging it in over night at home).
So yes, the companies actually need guidelines. They are no startup that can produce a few EVs and then scale up over the next decade. They are full fledged businesses with massive production facilities and tens of thousands of workers. They indeed need to know when to reach 100% EV production as they are depending on gradually changing over production. We will kill our ICE production today and only produce EVs isn’t an option when 80% of the people either can’t afford one or have no valid charging option yet.
I suppose share holders and the market does. Because the ICE vehicles are still selling better then EVs and to make great EVs, there is a lot of expensive R&D, which why would they do, if share holders want to keep the money rather then spend it
I don’t quite understand this. Nobody’s forcing manufacturers to keep producing ICE cars. They could just say ‘screw it’ and decide on their own to only build BEV.
And then they would go bankrupt pretty fast. EVs are more expensive and don’t have a massive infrastructure to refuel them, build over decades (also still heavily subsidised indirectly).
The company saying “screw it” today just cut their available market down to a fraction of its former size, down to the small amount of “we have money to spare anyway and already have our own home and garage to refuel”-people. The majority can’t afford to buy a car for twice the price because it’s better for the environment. And they don’t even have a spot to park them other than on the side of the street (maybe some countries are better than others in that regard but here having to charge at the few publically available chargers doubles the cost compoared to just plugging it in over night at home).
So yes, the companies actually need guidelines. They are no startup that can produce a few EVs and then scale up over the next decade. They are full fledged businesses with massive production facilities and tens of thousands of workers. They indeed need to know when to reach 100% EV production as they are depending on gradually changing over production. We will kill our ICE production today and only produce EVs isn’t an option when 80% of the people either can’t afford one or have no valid charging option yet.
I suppose share holders and the market does. Because the ICE vehicles are still selling better then EVs and to make great EVs, there is a lot of expensive R&D, which why would they do, if share holders want to keep the money rather then spend it