Whatever Happened to Electric Cars?

[Treeshepherd]

Tesla has big plans for the non-luxury market:

Most of your major car companies are investing heavily in EVs. When we get version below 30k that has a consistent 100 mile range, you'll likely see their sales skyrocket.

Still too expensive when compared to gas vehicles, and 2017 is too far away.

The ultimate test will be how many they sell in comparison to hybrid cars, but I doubt they will out sell them or change the market.

The EV market will continue to grow. Generating electricity will also grow. The renewable generation of electricity has come a long way, and will continue to do so.

As the need grows, so will the need for nuclear power plants. Properly run they are our best option right now.

yeah it is a good thing however windmills and solar panels do not do much

for demand times

we need many more nuke plants but good luck getting that through

However, the market is barely keeping pace with current projected electricity needs, any increased use is bad for the environment and will make it difficult to meet 'green energy' targets. What electric cars will lead to, is more non-renewable power and coal or gas plants.

Or more nuclear plants. We are constantly adding to the load our power grid is expected to handle. But then, we are also constantly adding to the requirement for oil as well. If you weigh the damage to the environment done by increasing the electrical load against the environmental damage done by one oil spill, the EVs come out as a positive.

I don't like nuclear. The power is expensive. Only the government will insure a nuke plant. There's the issue of waste disposal, which many countries like Japan just dumped in the ocean until the 1970s.
Nuke plants use a lot of fresh water (bad for drought). You've got to drive the waste somewhere.
Natural disasters happen. Human error happens. War happens. In a conventional war, suddenly your nuke plant is an embedded target. Drop a bunker buster on that thing and BANG!
There's been a history of displacing people to mine the Uranium. Nobody gets kicked off their land to get at silicon.

Of all the power technologies, none are more reliant on big government to protect, insure and maintain than nuclear.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

From the Blaze tonight:

Bammy promised in his 2011 State of the Union Address, that by 2015, electric cars would swarm this country's landscape thicker than illegal aliens. Yet 99.7% of the hundreds of thousands of electric cars he promised, are nowhere to be found. Yet one more idiotic pipedream by Bammy's warmies. Oh, and you the taxpayer forked over a $7,500 subsidy for every one that was sold. Just makes you feel green and cozy all over, don't it?

Trouble with electric cars is a damned if ya do, damned if ya don't proposition. The electricy has to come from somewhere. If you have an all electric car nation instead of oil, you need mroe nuclear and/or coal burning power plants producing the increased electrcity. Have seasonal shortages as it is already. Nevermind having electric cars any significant portion of the US automobile fleet.

 

[g5000]

From the Blaze tonight:

Bammy promised in his 2011 State of the Union Address, that by 2015, electric cars would swarm this country's landscape thicker than illegal aliens. Yet 99.7% of the hundreds of thousands of electric cars he promised, are nowhere to be found. Yet one more idiotic pipedream by Bammy's warmies. Oh, and you the taxpayer forked over a $7,500 subsidy for every one that was sold. Just makes you feel green and cozy all over, don't it?

Transcript of 2011 State of the Union address:

With more research and incentives, we can break our dependence on oil with biofuels, and become the first country to have a million electric vehicles on the road by 2015.

Has the GOP House approved more incentives since then?

Electric car use by country:

As of December 2014, the United States has the largest fleet of plug-in electric vehicles in the world, with over 290,000 highway-capable plug-in electric cars sold since the market launch of the Tesla Roadster in 2008.

So we are 29 percent of the way toward Obama's goal, not 0.3 percent.

 

[g5000]

With the extra amount of money you spend on an electric car over a gasoline powered car, you have to damn near drive it for 10 years before you make up the difference in gas savings.

And by then, you have to drop eight grand to replace the batteries. So you never really save any money on one.

They are simply not cost effective.

Yet.

 

[WinterBorn]

With the extra amount of money you spend on an electric car over a gasoline powered car, you have to damn near drive it for 10 years before you make up the difference in gas savings.

And by then, you have to drop eight grand to replace the batteries. So you never really save any money on one.

They are simply not cost effective.

Yet.

If you are comparing a Tesla to a Honda, that might be true. But if you compare the Tesla to the equivalent Mercedes or BMW, the cost effectiveness is there.

 

[g5000]

With the extra amount of money you spend on an electric car over a gasoline powered car, you have to damn near drive it for 10 years before you make up the difference in gas savings.

And by then, you have to drop eight grand to replace the batteries. So you never really save any money on one.

They are simply not cost effective.

Yet.

If you are comparing a Tesla to a Honda, that might be true. But if you compare the Tesla to the equivalent Mercedes or BMW, the cost effectiveness is there.

I'm comparing all electric cars. Like the Chevy Volt.

You going to compare the Chevy Volt to a Rolls Royce next?

 

[g5000]

Bad news for Tesla owners. If you leave your car in an Arizona airport parking lot for two weeks, congratulations. You are now the proud owner of a $100,000 brick.

 

[g5000]

Tesla Motors Devastating Design Problem

Oh, sorry. I said $8,000 to replace the batteries. I was way off:

The only known remedy is for the owner to pay Tesla approximately $40,000 to replace the entire battery.

 

[g5000]

Even if gas was $4.00 a gallon, you can buy 10,000 gallons of gas for the price of a Tesla S-class battery.

A Mercedes S-class gets 26 miles per gallon.

So you could drive a Mercedes S-class 260,000 miles for the cost of a Tesla battery.

If gas was $3.00 a gallon, you could drive that same Mercedes 346,667 miles.

 

[g5000]

If you are comparing a Tesla to a Honda, that might be true. But if you compare the Tesla to the equivalent Mercedes or BMW, the cost effectiveness is there.

How many Mercedes S-class cars do you see on the road?

 

[Flopper]

The car industry bought all the patents they could to shut down competition to oil and hybrid vehicles, and Tesla focuses on the luxury market.

Tesla has big plans for the non-luxury market:

Chevrolet’s debut of the Bolt EV concept at this year’s Detroit Auto Show led many to state that the proposed vehicle’s 200-mile range and $30,000 price tag will give Tesla Motors cause to be nervous, but CEO Elon Musk isn’t breaking a sweat just yet.

Speaking at the Automotive News World Congress during this year’s Detroit Auto Show, The Car Connection reports that Musk covered a myriad of subjects during an on-stage interview with a group of journalists. Among them was his statement that the Tesla Model 3, a vehicle planned for 2017, will run less than that, starting at $35,000. The keen math wizards among you have surely realized Musk’s number is larger than the one for the Chevy Bolt, but the Bolt’s planned price includes government tax rebates whereas the one for the Tesla 3 doesn’t.

Tesla Model 3 to cost less than Chevrolet Bolt EV vehicle Digital Trends

Most of your major car companies are investing heavily in EVs. When we get version below 30k that has a consistent 100 mile range, you'll likely see their sales skyrocket.

Still too expensive when compared to gas vehicles, and 2017 is too far away.

The ultimate test will be how many they sell in comparison to hybrid cars, but I doubt they will out sell them or change the market.

The EV market will continue to grow. Generating electricity will also grow. The renewable generation of electricity has come a long way, and will continue to do so.

As the need grows, so will the need for nuclear power plants. Properly run they are our best option right now.

yeah it is a good thing however windmills and solar panels do not do much

for demand times

we need many more nuke plants but good luck getting that through

However, the market is barely keeping pace with current projected electricity needs, any increased use is bad for the environment and will make it difficult to meet 'green energy' targets. What electric cars will lead to, is more non-renewable power and coal or gas plants.

Your post brings up the question of co2 emissions due to fossil fuel electric power generation to power an electric vehicle versus emissions from fossil fuel used to power a gas vehicle. Would there be more or less co2 emission from a gasoline vehicle driving say a hundred miles or from the fossil needed to generate the electricity to power an electric vehicle driving that distance?

 

[hipeter924]

Tesla has big plans for the non-luxury market:

Most of your major car companies are investing heavily in EVs. When we get version below 30k that has a consistent 100 mile range, you'll likely see their sales skyrocket.

Still too expensive when compared to gas vehicles, and 2017 is too far away.

The ultimate test will be how many they sell in comparison to hybrid cars, but I doubt they will out sell them or change the market.

The EV market will continue to grow. Generating electricity will also grow. The renewable generation of electricity has come a long way, and will continue to do so.

As the need grows, so will the need for nuclear power plants. Properly run they are our best option right now.

yeah it is a good thing however windmills and solar panels do not do much

for demand times

we need many more nuke plants but good luck getting that through

However, the market is barely keeping pace with current projected electricity needs, any increased use is bad for the environment and will make it difficult to meet 'green energy' targets. What electric cars will lead to, is more non-renewable power and coal or gas plants.

Your post brings up the question of co2 emissions due to fossil fuel electric power generation to power an electric vehicle versus emissions from fossil fuel used to power a gas vehicle. Would there be more or less co2 emission from a gasoline vehicle driving say a hundred miles or from the fossil needed to generate the electricity to power an electric vehicle driving that distance?

Posted an RT video on that earlier, if an electric car gets energy generation from coal (or other non-renewable source) then it produces more carbon emissions/pollution into the atmosphere than a fossil fuel vehicle. Most countries use non-renewables, so it would be a stretch to suggest that electric cars would be 'better for the environment', as even many European countries can't reach current electricity demands without fossil fuel generation.

But another point to be made is how would electricity companies possibly build the required capacity to keep up with out of control energy demands, as in this hypothetical near future (where every car is standard electric and not hydrogen fuel cell). The answer is four options:
A) Increase electricity prices to pay for the new infrastructure, possibly by 100% or more given the massive energy demands.
B) Only add infrastructure as required or when new plants can be budgeted, resulting in big power outages only usually seen in third world countries.
C) Heavily subsidize electricity companies, out of the taxpayers pocket in state and federal taxes. Expect everyone's taxes to increase by 20% or more. This would create an oversupply, but high power bills would be paid in taxes.
D) A combination of all three.

 

[Treeshepherd]

Still too expensive when compared to gas vehicles, and 2017 is too far away.

The ultimate test will be how many they sell in comparison to hybrid cars, but I doubt they will out sell them or change the market.

The EV market will continue to grow. Generating electricity will also grow. The renewable generation of electricity has come a long way, and will continue to do so.

As the need grows, so will the need for nuclear power plants. Properly run they are our best option right now.

yeah it is a good thing however windmills and solar panels do not do much

for demand times

we need many more nuke plants but good luck getting that through

However, the market is barely keeping pace with current projected electricity needs, any increased use is bad for the environment and will make it difficult to meet 'green energy' targets. What electric cars will lead to, is more non-renewable power and coal or gas plants.

Your post brings up the question of co2 emissions due to fossil fuel electric power generation to power an electric vehicle versus emissions from fossil fuel used to power a gas vehicle. Would there be more or less co2 emission from a gasoline vehicle driving say a hundred miles or from the fossil needed to generate the electricity to power an electric vehicle driving that distance?

Posted an RT video on that earlier, if an electric car gets energy generation from coal (or other non-renewable source) then it produces more carbon emissions/pollution into the atmosphere than a fossil fuel vehicle. Most countries use non-renewables, so it would be a stretch to suggest that electric cars would be 'better for the environment', as even many European countries can't reach current electricity demands without fossil fuel generation.

But another point to be made is how would electricity companies possibly build the required capacity to keep up with out of control energy demands, as in this hypothetical near future (where every car is standard electric and not hydrogen fuel cell). The answer is four options:
A) Increase electricity prices to pay for the new infrastructure, possibly by 100% or more given the massive energy demands.
B) Only add infrastructure as required or when new plants can be budgeted, resulting in big power outages only usually seen in third world countries.
C) Heavily subsidize electricity companies, out of the taxpayers pocket in state and federal taxes. Expect everyone's taxes to increase by 20% or more. This would create an oversupply, but high power bills would be paid in taxes.
D) A combination of all three.

I think it's important to parse between the Volt and Tesla. The government bailed out GM, and if I'm not mistaken, making the Volt was part of the agreement. The Volt is expensive, and I don't see it making inroads into the Prius market. The Prius is a very practical car that runs on both gas and electric and is trendy and has an attractive base price. I don't see Volt converting many cultists of Prius, which is what it needs to do.

Tesla is a luxury vehicle. They actually took over an old GM plant in California.That was the Nummi plant they took over together with Toyota. I'm not aware of tax incentives that were used to entice them there. If you buy an electric car, you get a tax break. As a taxpayer, money doesn't come out of your pocket if someone else gets a tax write-off.

Someone said that the Tesla gigafactory is already a go in Nevada. I can't find a story to confirm that. But, I'm sure that State governments will throw anything they can toward Tesla to entice them to their state. That happens with all car companies who build in the US. States offer 9 figure incentives to lure Nissan, Toyota, BMV, Volkswagen, Merc-Benz, etc. to build plants.

 

[hipeter924]

The EV market will continue to grow. Generating electricity will also grow. The renewable generation of electricity has come a long way, and will continue to do so.

As the need grows, so will the need for nuclear power plants. Properly run they are our best option right now.

yeah it is a good thing however windmills and solar panels do not do much

for demand times

we need many more nuke plants but good luck getting that through

However, the market is barely keeping pace with current projected electricity needs, any increased use is bad for the environment and will make it difficult to meet 'green energy' targets. What electric cars will lead to, is more non-renewable power and coal or gas plants.

Your post brings up the question of co2 emissions due to fossil fuel electric power generation to power an electric vehicle versus emissions from fossil fuel used to power a gas vehicle. Would there be more or less co2 emission from a gasoline vehicle driving say a hundred miles or from the fossil needed to generate the electricity to power an electric vehicle driving that distance?

Posted an RT video on that earlier, if an electric car gets energy generation from coal (or other non-renewable source) then it produces more carbon emissions/pollution into the atmosphere than a fossil fuel vehicle. Most countries use non-renewables, so it would be a stretch to suggest that electric cars would be 'better for the environment', as even many European countries can't reach current electricity demands without fossil fuel generation.

But another point to be made is how would electricity companies possibly build the required capacity to keep up with out of control energy demands, as in this hypothetical near future (where every car is standard electric and not hydrogen fuel cell). The answer is four options:
A) Increase electricity prices to pay for the new infrastructure, possibly by 100% or more given the massive energy demands.
B) Only add infrastructure as required or when new plants can be budgeted, resulting in big power outages only usually seen in third world countries.
C) Heavily subsidize electricity companies, out of the taxpayers pocket in state and federal taxes. Expect everyone's taxes to increase by 20% or more. This would create an oversupply, but high power bills would be paid in taxes.
D) A combination of all three.

I think it's important to parse between the Volt and Tesla. The government bailed out GM, and if I'm not mistaken, making the Volt was part of the agreement. The Volt is expensive, and I don't see it making inroads into the Prius market. The Prius is a very practical car that runs on both gas and electric and is trendy and has an attractive base price. I don't see Volt converting many cultists of Prius, which is what it needs to do.

Tesla is a luxury vehicle. They actually took over an old GM plant in California.That was the Nummi plant they took over together with Toyota. I'm not aware of tax incentives that were used to entice them there. If you buy an electric car, you get a tax break. As a taxpayer, money doesn't come out of your pocket if someone else gets a tax write-off.

Someone said that the Tesla gigafactory is already a go in Nevada. I can't find a story to confirm that. But, I'm sure that State governments will throw anything they can toward Tesla to entice them to their state. That happens with all car companies who build in the US. States offer 9 figure incentives to lure Nissan, Toyota, BMV, Volkswagen, Merc-Benz, etc. to build plants.

I don't see full electric vehicles overtaking the hybrid market any time soon, let alone the fossil fuel car market.

There is no viable incentive to move away from petrol/diesel at the moment with lower oil prices, and due to significantly higher production costs for electric only vehicles.

There would have to be a small production cost difference for manufacturers to move to electric only vehicles, as opposed to petrol/diesal and hybrids. Also consumers generally prefer petrol/diesal vehicles and enjoy driving them.

 

[Treeshepherd]

I don't see full electric vehicles overtaking the hybrid market any time soon, let alone the fossil fuel car market.

There is no viable incentive to move away from petrol/diesel at the moment with lower oil prices, and due to significantly higher production costs for electric only vehicles.

There would have to be a small production cost difference for manufacturers to move to electric only vehicles, as opposed to petrol/diesal and hybrids. Also consumers generally prefer petrol/diesal vehicles and enjoy driving them.

I agree. I don't see EV overtaking gas and diesel soon.

But, the suggestion of the OP title is that EVs have somehow failed or been proven to be a pipe dream. What's actually happening is that Tesla and others are making progress. Battery technology is steadily progressing. And charging stations are popping up here and there.

I recommended on Tuesday in post #29 to buy Tesla stock in the dip. It was up 2.5% Wednesday and today at this second another 3%.

 

[WinterBorn]

Still too expensive when compared to gas vehicles, and 2017 is too far away.

The ultimate test will be how many they sell in comparison to hybrid cars, but I doubt they will out sell them or change the market.

The EV market will continue to grow. Generating electricity will also grow. The renewable generation of electricity has come a long way, and will continue to do so.

As the need grows, so will the need for nuclear power plants. Properly run they are our best option right now.

yeah it is a good thing however windmills and solar panels do not do much

for demand times

we need many more nuke plants but good luck getting that through

However, the market is barely keeping pace with current projected electricity needs, any increased use is bad for the environment and will make it difficult to meet 'green energy' targets. What electric cars will lead to, is more non-renewable power and coal or gas plants.

Your post brings up the question of co2 emissions due to fossil fuel electric power generation to power an electric vehicle versus emissions from fossil fuel used to power a gas vehicle. Would there be more or less co2 emission from a gasoline vehicle driving say a hundred miles or from the fossil needed to generate the electricity to power an electric vehicle driving that distance?

Posted an RT video on that earlier, if an electric car gets energy generation from coal (or other non-renewable source) then it produces more carbon emissions/pollution into the atmosphere than a fossil fuel vehicle. Most countries use non-renewables, so it would be a stretch to suggest that electric cars would be 'better for the environment', as even many European countries can't reach current electricity demands without fossil fuel generation.

But another point to be made is how would electricity companies possibly build the required capacity to keep up with out of control energy demands, as in this hypothetical near future (where every car is standard electric and not hydrogen fuel cell). The answer is four options:
A) Increase electricity prices to pay for the new infrastructure, possibly by 100% or more given the massive energy demands.
B) Only add infrastructure as required or when new plants can be budgeted, resulting in big power outages only usually seen in third world countries.
C) Heavily subsidize electricity companies, out of the taxpayers pocket in state and federal taxes. Expect everyone's taxes to increase by 20% or more. This would create an oversupply, but high power bills would be paid in taxes.
D) A combination of all three.

The problem with your supposition is the idea that in the near future every car will be electric. The idea that we will have over 250 million electric cars in the near future is hard to believe. They have been on the market for around 7 years and have only reached the 100,000 mark not too long ago.

The 2014 production totals of the 3 commonly known EVs were 30,200 for the LEAF, 18,805 for the Volt, and 17,300 for the Tesla. It will take quite a while to top 250 million vehicles.

Our fossil fuel reserves are limited. They may be plentiful now. But the rate at which we consume them makes their limits a reality.

We had better hope that the EVs can reach a production level that will allow large numbers on the road, along with hydrogen powered vehicles, since our oil & gas reserves will likely not last another 50 years. Alternative sources of power for our vehicles is not a gimmick. It is a requirement. I am 55 years old. I expect another 25 years or so of life. But anyone under 30 had better hope and pray alternatives can be found before the oil & gas runs out.

And that is not alarmist nonsense. That is simply acknowledging the facts of our oil & gas consumption. As other nations develop and begin to consume it at the rates we in the US have consumed it for decades, the world supply dwindles faster and faster.

The US Navy has been powering ships with nuclear reactors since the early 1960s. With the modern technologies available, the nuclear generating stations produce high volumes of power for long periods of time. It is not the only option, but I think it is the best bet.

 

[g5000]

They have been on the market for around 7 years and have only reached the 100,000 mark not too long ago.

290,000 are now on the road.

 

[WinterBorn]

yeah it is a good thing however windmills and solar panels do not do much

for demand times

we need many more nuke plants but good luck getting that through

However, the market is barely keeping pace with current projected electricity needs, any increased use is bad for the environment and will make it difficult to meet 'green energy' targets. What electric cars will lead to, is more non-renewable power and coal or gas plants.

Your post brings up the question of co2 emissions due to fossil fuel electric power generation to power an electric vehicle versus emissions from fossil fuel used to power a gas vehicle. Would there be more or less co2 emission from a gasoline vehicle driving say a hundred miles or from the fossil needed to generate the electricity to power an electric vehicle driving that distance?

Posted an RT video on that earlier, if an electric car gets energy generation from coal (or other non-renewable source) then it produces more carbon emissions/pollution into the atmosphere than a fossil fuel vehicle. Most countries use non-renewables, so it would be a stretch to suggest that electric cars would be 'better for the environment', as even many European countries can't reach current electricity demands without fossil fuel generation.

But another point to be made is how would electricity companies possibly build the required capacity to keep up with out of control energy demands, as in this hypothetical near future (where every car is standard electric and not hydrogen fuel cell). The answer is four options:
A) Increase electricity prices to pay for the new infrastructure, possibly by 100% or more given the massive energy demands.
B) Only add infrastructure as required or when new plants can be budgeted, resulting in big power outages only usually seen in third world countries.
C) Heavily subsidize electricity companies, out of the taxpayers pocket in state and federal taxes. Expect everyone's taxes to increase by 20% or more. This would create an oversupply, but high power bills would be paid in taxes.
D) A combination of all three.

I think it's important to parse between the Volt and Tesla. The government bailed out GM, and if I'm not mistaken, making the Volt was part of the agreement. The Volt is expensive, and I don't see it making inroads into the Prius market. The Prius is a very practical car that runs on both gas and electric and is trendy and has an attractive base price. I don't see Volt converting many cultists of Prius, which is what it needs to do.

Tesla is a luxury vehicle. They actually took over an old GM plant in California.That was the Nummi plant they took over together with Toyota. I'm not aware of tax incentives that were used to entice them there. If you buy an electric car, you get a tax break. As a taxpayer, money doesn't come out of your pocket if someone else gets a tax write-off.

Someone said that the Tesla gigafactory is already a go in Nevada. I can't find a story to confirm that. But, I'm sure that State governments will throw anything they can toward Tesla to entice them to their state. That happens with all car companies who build in the US. States offer 9 figure incentives to lure Nissan, Toyota, BMV, Volkswagen, Merc-Benz, etc. to build plants.

I don't see full electric vehicles overtaking the hybrid market any time soon, let alone the fossil fuel car market.

There is no viable incentive to move away from petrol/diesel at the moment with lower oil prices, and due to significantly higher production costs for electric only vehicles.

There would have to be a small production cost difference for manufacturers to move to electric only vehicles, as opposed to petrol/diesal and hybrids. Also consumers generally prefer petrol/diesal vehicles and enjoy driving them.

There is incentive in the long run. And that is the limited supply of oil to fuel vehicles. We burned 134 billion gallons of gas in 2013. That is 4 billion barrels of oil (182 billion gals).

Worldwide we are consuming 90 million barrels of oil a day. And that is increasing steadily.

 

[WinterBorn]

Those who seem so opposed to the EVs have yet to actually do anything to provide an alternative. If hydrogen is the future, then how about some enterprising American Entrepreneur come up with workable models and start selling them? The chief complaint I have seen is that there is no infrastructure in place for refueling. The same could have been said for the Tesla. But they went out and worked on solving the problem.

It always amazes me that so many conservatives seem adamantly against the success of teh Tesla and other EVs.

Tesla was started by entrepreneurs with an idea. Yes, they borrowed to start the production. But manufacturing cars is not like making wicker baskets. There must be a considerable investment to start up. Their first car rolled off the production lines in 2008. The same year the economy crashed in the worst way since the Great Depression. And STILL Tesla managed to survive and repay the debt.

The complain about EVs was that they were limited in range. They fixed that partly with ingenuity in the technology, and partly buy building a network of charging stations nation wide, as they were still building their original business.

Isn't all of that the sort of business that conservatives WANT to see??

 

[WinterBorn]

The EV market will continue to grow. Generating electricity will also grow. The renewable generation of electricity has come a long way, and will continue to do so.

As the need grows, so will the need for nuclear power plants. Properly run they are our best option right now.

yeah it is a good thing however windmills and solar panels do not do much

for demand times

we need many more nuke plants but good luck getting that through

However, the market is barely keeping pace with current projected electricity needs, any increased use is bad for the environment and will make it difficult to meet 'green energy' targets. What electric cars will lead to, is more non-renewable power and coal or gas plants.

Your post brings up the question of co2 emissions due to fossil fuel electric power generation to power an electric vehicle versus emissions from fossil fuel used to power a gas vehicle. Would there be more or less co2 emission from a gasoline vehicle driving say a hundred miles or from the fossil needed to generate the electricity to power an electric vehicle driving that distance?

Posted an RT video on that earlier, if an electric car gets energy generation from coal (or other non-renewable source) then it produces more carbon emissions/pollution into the atmosphere than a fossil fuel vehicle. Most countries use non-renewables, so it would be a stretch to suggest that electric cars would be 'better for the environment', as even many European countries can't reach current electricity demands without fossil fuel generation.

But another point to be made is how would electricity companies possibly build the required capacity to keep up with out of control energy demands, as in this hypothetical near future (where every car is standard electric and not hydrogen fuel cell). The answer is four options:
A) Increase electricity prices to pay for the new infrastructure, possibly by 100% or more given the massive energy demands.
B) Only add infrastructure as required or when new plants can be budgeted, resulting in big power outages only usually seen in third world countries.
C) Heavily subsidize electricity companies, out of the taxpayers pocket in state and federal taxes. Expect everyone's taxes to increase by 20% or more. This would create an oversupply, but high power bills would be paid in taxes.
D) A combination of all three.

I think it's important to parse between the Volt and Tesla. The government bailed out GM, and if I'm not mistaken, making the Volt was part of the agreement. The Volt is expensive, and I don't see it making inroads into the Prius market. The Prius is a very practical car that runs on both gas and electric and is trendy and has an attractive base price. I don't see Volt converting many cultists of Prius, which is what it needs to do.

Tesla is a luxury vehicle. They actually took over an old GM plant in California.That was the Nummi plant they took over together with Toyota. I'm not aware of tax incentives that were used to entice them there. If you buy an electric car, you get a tax break. As a taxpayer, money doesn't come out of your pocket if someone else gets a tax write-off.

Someone said that the Tesla gigafactory is already a go in Nevada. I can't find a story to confirm that. But, I'm sure that State governments will throw anything they can toward Tesla to entice them to their state. That happens with all car companies who build in the US. States offer 9 figure incentives to lure Nissan, Toyota, BMV, Volkswagen, Merc-Benz, etc. to build plants.

Yes, Tesla is a luxury vehicle. But most new technology starts out that way.