Forums

"Why Europe Has Passed the US As Number One In Plug-in Electrified Vehicles" - (Europe: +/- 133,000, China: 115,065, US: 91,496)

"Why Europe Has Passed the US As Number One In Plug-in Electrified Vehicles" - (Europe: +/- 133,000, China: 115,065, US: 91,496)

"Why Europe Has Passed the US As Number One In Plug-in Electrified Vehicles" - (Europe: +/- 133,000, China: 115,065, US: 91,496)

Link: http://www.hybridcars.com/why-europe-has-passed-the-us-as-number-one-in-...

Mike83 | 6 dicembre 2015

Good for Europe. Lets hope we get a better Congress in the US to catch up with the world.

DTsea | 6 dicembre 2015

Maybe because gas is super expensive there.

Duh.

Timo | 6 dicembre 2015

Depending of the country also taxes might be cheaper for low-emission cars, and BEV is as low emission as it can possibly be.

Benz | 7 dicembre 2015

@ DTsea

Prices of fuel (per liter) in The Netherlands:
Petrol: 1.58 Euro
Diesel: 1.24 Euro
LPG: 0.77 Euro

How much of that (per liter) goes to the government?
Petrol: 60% of 1.58 Euro = about 0.95 Euro
Diesel: 49% of 1.24 Euro = about 0.61 Euro
LPG: 35% of 0.77 Euro = about 0.27 Euro

Sales of fuel in The Netherlands in September 2015:
Petrol: 441 million liters
Diesel: 545 million liters
LPG: 29 million liters

Calculation:
Petrol: 441 x 0.95 = about 418.95 million Euro
Diesel: 545 x 0.61 = about 332.45 million Euro
LPG: 29 x 0.27 = about 7.83 million Euro
Total = about 759.83 million Euro

So, about 760 million Euro was collected by the Dutch government in September 2015. That's 9.12 billion Euro per year!!!

Then Netherlands is a pretty tiny country with almost 17 million inhabitants.

Mike83 | 7 dicembre 2015

Having traveled through Holland and realizing it is at or below Sea level, it would seem Global Warming is important.
A very happy place and innovative developing solutions to real problems.
Other countries could learn much about solving problems. Government policies do work.

Timo | 7 dicembre 2015

Considering the sea level raise speed (about 3mm / year) not a problem even for Netherlands/Holland. That's just a bogus boogeyman that climate fanatics use to sell their agenda.

Mike83 | 7 dicembre 2015

California may only allow zero emissions Vehicles by 2050.
More information on the Climate talks
http://www.nature.com/news/paris-climate-talks-day-8-what-we-re-reading-...

Tstolz | 7 dicembre 2015

Timo - it adds up and becomes material over time ...just depends how much ice melts. If we only realize 1 meter sea level rise ... they may be OK. Personally .. I'd move ... same as Florida .. property values will drop once peopke wake up. In the meantime climate deniers will get increasingly good deals I guess ;)

DTsea | 7 dicembre 2015

Benz,

Yes. At $2 per liter (roughly $7 per gallon) in europe, vs $2.50 in the US, an EV is more attractive.

Benz | 7 dicembre 2015

@ DTsea

I did the calculation only to show you why it's so expensive here in The Netherlands, and how much money the Dutch government receives via taxes on fuel.

And I agree with you that this makes an EV more attractive in Europe (compared to the US). It's not that I disagree with you.

DTsea | 7 dicembre 2015

I didnt take it as disagreement, @Benz.

Timo | 7 dicembre 2015

@Tstolz, that is a big "if". One meter at this rate takes 333 years.

Al1 | 7 dicembre 2015

Because it has Norway (reexport from Germany and EU) and Mitsubishi Outlander - the best selling car not available in the US.

Also because in the US all heavyweights - old models starting with Prius are phasing out, while new models Volt, Leaf, not yet in.

US will make strong comeback. Tesla is better fit for US. Most of newcomers starting with Leaf and Volt are expected and will do well, it is bigger market and economy is in better shape.

But China may overcome both US and Europe.

Timo | 7 dicembre 2015

Well, 1.3 billion people vs (roughly) 320M US and 520M Europe.

China might get there later, but mass of the people is just so big that even with just 1/5th gets an BEV that would be more than US.

Same with India. Eventually they get more of them too.

Ross1 | 8 dicembre 2015

What is missing from the article is consideration of the effect if Model X had been delivered.
30,000 orders and maybe 70,000 more sales, would put Tesla as top seller in Europe, maybe USA as top consumer in the world, if they had been delivered.

That is the cost of sculptural seats, pano screen, wing doors,...

Had there been a doctored MS for the MS, sales would still have been out there,
All the fantastic features were unexpected, and therefore largely unnecessary to ramp up. The glories could have come as a later luxury model, like Lexus is to Toyota.

Pity.

GreyDad | 9 dicembre 2015

Don't agree - I suspect they've held off the X while they devote all their manufacturing capacity to meeting the increase in S orders at the end of the year. They'll sell far greater numbers of the S than they will the X in the timeframe to year-end. If so, good business decision imho.

Benz | 12 dicembre 2015

I agree with GreyDad.

The Tesla Model S has already gained popularity, therefore the focus should be on executing Tesla Model S orders first.

Benz | 13 dicembre 2015

We should see an increase in the deliveries of Plug-In vehicles in the US in 2016. More than 150,000 should be possible.

JeffreyR | 13 dicembre 2015

@Benz and @GreyDad

Assuming that the production details of the Model X are worked out, they should have built them. They already have many thousands of reservations in hand. The only reason to delay converting those MX reservations to orders and building them are technical. The lead time on MX orders and the very visible delays in production are only hurting Tesla now. Adding a few weeks to Model S deliveries is not that big of a deal compared to not being able to get a MX 70 for almost a year.

I think the big reason the Model S is the focus now is that they do not have the MX's supply chain and assembly kinks smoothed out yet and they need to get as many deliveries done by the end of the year as possible.

Obviously folks who put down their reservation deposits care about getting their cars. So any notice of production and deliveries to make that happen is good news and worth knowing. But, for the rest of us, I think we want the timeline for when MX production is around 1000/week. We all know now the September 29 reveal/delivery was just a fun, informative show. It meant nothing in terms of actual production readiness.

Here's hoping the Model ≡ and Model Y roll out go much, much better!

Uncle Paul | 14 dicembre 2015

EV's in Europe serve a different purpose than in US.

City Centers are closed off to polluting vehicles. Gas/Diesel vehicles must park a couple miles outside the City and be bussed into town with Propane fueled busses or trams.

They put just a big enough battery to get these cars allowed to drive into and out of town with electric power, then switch to IC motor for the balance of their journey.

Not allowed to turn on the IC motor while in the forbidden zone.

bb0tin | 14 dicembre 2015

@Timo
The current sea level rise is over 3mm per year and the rate is increasing. Positive feedbacks have not kicked in yet either. The minimum rise to be expected by 2100 is 1 metre. The maximum is much more. Much of South Floria will be underwater by 2100 at there is notjing that can be done to stop it since they are on porous subsrate. They are already flooded at high tide now.
It ain't no 'bogus boogeyman'. If you think it is, then invest your money in South Florida real estate in a few years. It will be going for a song.
http://www.realclimate.org/images//sea _level _rise _vs _temperature.png
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Projected -sea -level -rise.gif
http://www.weather.com/news/climate/news/south -florida -sea -level -rise -mass -exodus
(remove the spaces to get a valid URL)

Timo | 15 dicembre 2015

@bb0tin, that's bullshit and not backed by any science, just speculation. Please don't turn this thread to another religious debate where you don't accept any fact that doesn't fit your fixed point of view.

bb0tin | 15 dicembre 2015

@Timo
I beg to differ.
I will make you a deal.
I will provide links to scientific papers supporting each of my statements, and therefore supporting each of the links I have provided.
You will try and provide links to scientific papers refuting them.
If you cannot provide the links, and I can, then you accept that what I provided is backed by science, and your opinion is not. You will further accept that 'you don't accept any fact that doesn't fit your fixed point of view.'
If I cannot provide the links, and you can, then I will no longer refute your posts on this forum regarding Climate Change.
Deal or no deal?

bb0tin | 15 dicembre 2015

@Timo
In June this year I had a debate with you about the conclusions of an IPCC report. I went to the effort of rereading the report and quoted you the appropriate sections supporting my statement. I requested multiple times that you supply a link to the science supporting your opinion. You never did. You are the one who hold ‘religious’ beliefs and does not accept facts which show them to be false.
A reminder for you of the last post on the subject:
-----------------------------
bb0tin | June 30, 2015
@Timo
On June 25th you said:
"Read the facts in that report and make your own opinion. Or read the referenced papers that they have used to make that report. You get quite different picture of the things."
I responded with:
"So you are not going to trust the FAQ i.e.
FAQ 7: Are the future impacts of climate change only negative?
Might there be positive impacts as well?
[Chapters 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 19, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, and 30]
Overall, the report identifies many more negative impacts than positive impacts projected for the future, especially for high magnitudes and rates of climate change.”
Would you please tell me which referenced papers give a "different picture of the things". I do not believe you will succeed."
You have still not produced any evidence to support your assertion. If you are not able to do so, then at least retract your assertion, since I can only assume that it is false.
-----------------------------

Timo | 15 dicembre 2015

@bb0tin, please keep your opinions about climate change in climate change threads. That was the point of my message. I will not respond to you about that in here (or anywhere else for that matter, I have tired to debate with religious zealots). This will be my final OT message to you in this thread.

bb0tin | 15 dicembre 2015

@Timo
You are being a hypocrite again. If you go back and read this thread you will see that I only entered it after you posted:
"Considering the sea level raise speed (about 3mm / year) not a problem even for Netherlands/Holland. That's just a bogus boogeyman that climate fanatics use to sell their agenda."
It is you who turned this thread into a 'climate change thread'. Not me. I am glad it is your final post. You have a history on this forum of posting factually incorrect statements about Climate Change and then not backing them up with any science. You contribute nothing to the discourse except your erroneous opinions.
PS: It is not my opinions that I post, it is the science.

bb0tin | 15 dicembre 2015

@Timo
I should have mentioned that you did not take me up on the deal I offered. All you had to do was back up your opinions with science and I would no longer refute your posts. That is a pretty good deal for you. It is telling that you did not accept the deal. You know yourself that you cannot do so, because what you post is unsupported by the science. Yet you still posted your opinion. You are a class A hypocrite.

SamO | 15 dicembre 2015

@Timo,

You mad bro?

Getting pwnd can do that to a b!tch.

Brian H | 15 dicembre 2015

3 mm/yr = 30cm/century = 1 foot. NBD even were it true.

RedShift | 15 dicembre 2015

It's like talking to a bunch of noisy marbles rolling around in a tin pan.

bb0tin | 15 dicembre 2015

@Brian H
You have been asleep at the wheel. Have some coffee. Engage brain.
http://www.realclimate.org/images//sea _level _rise _vs _temperature.png
http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Projected -sea -level -rise.gif

Timo | 15 dicembre 2015

@Red Shift +1

Another thread hijacked by religious nuts that don't care what the topic is as long as they can distribute their message.

Trying to get back to the topic: new emission rules in Europe = gas costs raise even more = even more friendly for BEV:s. Most of Europe is a very good place to have BEV, especially if you drive a lot.

bb0tin | 16 dicembre 2015

@Timo
You just said “Another thread hijacked by religious nuts that don't care what the topic is as long as they can distribute their message.”

As I pointed out to you earlier in this thread, it was you who hijacked this thread and turned it into one about Climate Change with this post.
"Considering the sea level raise speed (about 3mm / year) not a problem even for Netherlands/Holland. That's just a bogus boogeyman that climate fanatics use to sell their agenda."

You have just described yourself as the “religious nut”.
Have you finally looked at yourself in the mirror?

Jolinar | 16 dicembre 2015

@Timo
c'mon man, if you are right, why don't you accept the deal that bb0tin offered to you?
Or perhaps you are the religious one? If not, just accept the proposed deal and prove it...

Timo | 16 dicembre 2015

Jolinar, Brian H et co, please start a new thread where you try to lure me into pointless discussion. This debate is OT here. I think you already killed the topic, but I hope not. Discussing what is different in Europe vs US about BEV:s is interesting to me.

bb0tin | 16 dicembre 2015

@Timo
So now you are claiming that you were 'lured' into making your initial statement which 'hijacked' this thread. LOL. You sound like a rapist claiming they were lured into it by a short skirt.
And yes, my deal is still open to you.