[RahulNagaraj]

Last year, both the EU and California announced that they would ban the sale of ICE-powered vehicles from 2035, with only battery-electric vehicles allowed to be sold in the second half of the next decade. However, Germany & Italy recently threatened to block the EU's plan, asking for concessions towards synthetic fuels that could power and keep combustion engines alive well past the 2035 deadline.



Now, according to a joint survey carried out by ABB Robotics & Automotive Manufacturing Solutions, the majority of the respondents doubted whether the switch to EVs was even possible within the timeframe set by the lawmakers. The survey stated that 59% of the auto industry experts thought the mass switch to EVs was unachievable within the regulatory timelines.

The study shows that 26% of the respondents agreed that the single biggest barrier is the lack of charging infrastructure, while 17% of them stated that the high prices of EVs were also a problem.

There were, however, 11% of those who believed that all EV adoption targets of 2030-2040 were realistic, but also 18% who contradicted, claiming the targets would never be met.

The survey is said to have consisted of 600 respondents, most of them auto experts working directly for carmakers, suppliers, engineers & managers employed in the industry.

Source: CarScoops

Link to Team-BHP news

[shyampsunder]

Quite a funny report. This is like asking Nokia whether the future is only touchscreen-based phones or asking Kodak if the future is only digital photography.

The people surveyed here stand to lose out on an all-electric transformation of the auto industry, so it is obvious that they are pessimistic about it. Irrespective of whether someone is for or against complete electrification of PVs, this is a textbook example of a bad survey.

[RaghuVis]

Originally Posted by shyampsunder

Quite a funny report. This is like asking Nokia whether the future is only touchscreen-based phones or asking Kodak if the future is only digital photography.

Welcome to the world of surveys.

Most surveys in the world are biased and always with an agenda, either political, social or as is the case recently, woke! Not to say that it is good or bad, right or wrong. It is the way it is.

Originally Posted by RahulNagaraj

The survey is said to have consisted of 600 respondents, most of them auto experts working directly for carmakers, suppliers, engineers & managers employed in the industry.

The Majority of EV surveys/reports in the market are from two extreme sides of the spectrum. Environmentalists like Greta Thunberg, who by the way deleted her old tweet where she predicted that the world will end by 2023 . Or by oil executives who don't want to stop minting money.

This survey at least is closer to the heart of the subject -- Carmakers, suppliers, engineers and managers -- all part of the food chain whether it is going to be ICE cars or EV cars. I feel this is an attempt worth looking into.

PS: Every carmaker knows ICE is on the way out. So no one is stupid enough to say that ICE should not go away.

PPS: Also, any change is going to be resistive, so people need patience!

[On4Wheels]

The projections by Boston Consulting Group (BCG) indicate a faster EV adoption in US. The difference between sales projections for 2030 based on the 2018 and 2022 data is more than two times. Also, there is report which states that one-in-five new cars sold in California in 2022 was a zero-emission vehicle.

EV sale projection for 2030


I guess the trend is similar for Europe also.The report by European alternative fuels observatory says 13.6% new cars are electric. As joker says in Dark knight "Madness as you know is a lot like gravity, all it takes is a little push". The governments have given the push through subsidies and tax benefits and buyers have wholeheartedly accepted it (It is definitely a good step to keep our planet livable). Thus, I think the EV adoption is unstoppable unless we walk into an electrical energy crisis in future. I am not forgetting the fact that governments will cut down subsidies and tax benefits as more and more people come forward to EV bracket. This will be offset by technology maturation and competition. Yes, the game has just began and we going to see many great players in automobile industry following Nokia and Motorola soon.

[SKC-auto]

What do we expect from suppliers of ICE vehicle components say for such surveys, next up oil industry executives survey says EVs are more polluting than ICE cars.

Originally Posted by RaghuVis

Environmentalists like Greta Thunberg, who by the way deleted her old tweet where she predicted that the world will end by 2023 .

Out off topic: Greta Thunberg is not at extremes, infact she never claimed to be a climate scientist, she often quotes to studies by climate scientists. Don't fall for the memes created by the grifters who are running a campaign against her, she most likely did not say world will end in 2023.

https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-...d-2023-1787420

[electric_eel]

Originally Posted by shyampsunder

Quite a funny report. This is like asking Nokia whether the future is only touchscreen-based phones or asking Kodak if the future is only digital photography.

The people surveyed here stand to lose out on an all-electric transformation of the auto industry, so it is obvious that they are pessimistic about it. Irrespective of whether someone is for or against complete electrification of PVs, this is a textbook example of a bad survey.

A survey like this I guess

https://youtu.be/ahgjEjJkZks

.

[Raghu M]

Let's put all the speculation aside for a minute. They are quite right in what they said, if we think the EV infra would be ready by 2035, it's just an impossible task. The shift will be slow, huge and by 2035, the big problem of battery recycling/scrapping will be hogging limelight and not just EVs I guess. That is EU, now just imagine how the situation will develop in India. Without a doubt the infra would get better but completely going EV by then looks just impossible. My honest thoughts.

[Samarth 619]

Biased survey is a different thing, but asking "Will sun rise in the East tomorrow?" is an entirely different matter.

Is it not obvious to us that electric vehicle acceptance, charging infrastructure and most importantly, the HUGE ENERGY REQUIREMENTS needed to ready each house for EV revolution is not achievable by 2035. Just 12 years left by the way.

I'm in favour of putting all this on market. Let the buyers decide and avoid useless legislations.
Eventually, a bigger portion of market will decide the EV's are cheaper to maintain and more comfortable, while a small group of enthusiasts will abide by the ICE. What's so bad about it?

If anything, they should legislate batteries being charged upto 80% only in default mode... This enhances battery longetivity by 3x as per research, thus bringing efficiency to lithium utilisation.

[DarthVeda]

Originally Posted by Samarth 619

Is it not obvious to us that electric vehicle acceptance, charging infrastructure and most importantly, the HUGE ENERGY REQUIREMENTS needed to ready each house for EV revolution is not achievable by 2035. Just 12 years left by the way.

No change is possible in one day, it is always gradual one. If you go back a decade and see how much energy we generated then and if you were to say I would like to see that increase by X %, you would say not possible, it is far away, but look at the progress we have made in renewables contribution to the grid.

I'm in favour of putting all this on market. Let the buyers decide and avoid useless legislations.

True, market/consumer dictates the tech adoption. However, you need to give impetus to a tech to enable wider adoption, and this is something which benefits the country, by reducing the amount of cash flow going out of country.

If anything, they should legislate batteries being charged upto 80% only in default mode... This enhances battery longetivity by 3x as per research, thus bringing efficiency to lithium utilisation.

This depends on the battery chemistry, what you are referring to is NMC type for Lithium Ion. Tata uses LFP, and that likes it to to go 100%. This year will also see start of Sodium Ion batteries, which should remove risks associated with Lithium.

[Samarth 619]

Originally Posted by DarthVeda

No change is possible in one day, it is always gradual one. If you go back a decade and see how much energy we generated then and if you were to say I would like to see that increase by X %, you would say not possible, it is far away, but look at the progress we have made in renewables contribution to the grid.

Agreed, we've come a long way, but where will we get the coal now? Just months ago we were in a situation where the coal was depleting, power cuts were the highest in decade, and then Coal India increased its output.
I know USA is a different nation, still we're talking about a few times more energy than today's consumption. Sustainable in USA? I doubt.

Some years ago, I heard China created an artificial sun on Earth itself, in hopes of a continuous reaction and to create unlimited energy.
If such a thing happens, we might as well have huge amounts of clean energy.
But this is a big "IF", so I'll just go back & make it bold.

True, market/consumer dictates the tech adoption. However, you need to give impetus to a tech to enable wider adoption, and this is something which benefits the country, by reducing the amount of cash flow going out of country.

Yes. Although, I don't feel the need for this impetus.
The common commuter instantly connects to the benefits of an EV, its only a matter of time before they realise they're looking at more silent, less vibrating, more comfy, no gear changing, more reliable kind of machine overall. You know, the perfected Honda Activa in a way.
But I agree that its debatable. What I feel is not a conclusion.

Also, a hidden thought I never shared:- I feel there should be choice of both in market, because suppose we face a crisis in either one fuel, we should have another to keep things going.
All eggs in one basket approach scares me big time.

This depends on the battery chemistry, what you are referring to is NMC type for Lithium Ion. Tata uses LFP, and that likes it to to go 100%. This year will also see start of Sodium Ion batteries, which should remove risks associated with Lithium.

NMC seems more common, but yes you're right, technology will hopefully continue to improve.

[supermax]

In order to make a change of this magitude, one needs to use both carrots and sticks. EU countries have been using the stick of ever increasing taxation on fossil fuels and the carrots in the form of various subsidies and cashbacks, to EV adopters. Now however, with the economy in a downturn, many countries are doing away with the sops for EV adopters, knowing or hoping that the EV community itself takes care of publicity and propagation.

The million dollar question though is whether the infrastructure would we in place by 2035, but an equally pertinent question is if EVs are really going to solve the problems that people are solving with ICE vehicles now, or whether they should be rammed down the throats of people, giving them no choice, in the name of the collective greater good for everybody.

Here are some pertinent questions

1. EVs come with huge extra upfront costs, resulting in higher EMIs, or greater residual value which would mean one would have to walk away from the car or risk paying a huge chunk of cash for outright ownership. Insurance costs for EVs are also far higher than that for conventional ICE vehicles. What if the potential car owner doesn't need to drive as much as needed to break even or actually save money?

2. Many new EV adopters get excited to note all the money they are saving when they do a big road trip, but how often does one do road trips? Unless they drive upwards of a hundred km a day, many would struggle to break even, when the increased cost of purchase is considered. Are they just blindly hopping onto the wagon or are they really doing their due diligence?

3. EV infrastructure as of today is woefully inadequate, but is still working due to the vast majority of vehicle owners still driving ICE. If more people start moving towards EVs, total chaos is imminent. This is what the automakers who are responding to the survey are referring to, but they are being mocked and laughed away, and not being taken seriously.

4. Many EV adopters are happy that their cars' batteries are covered by multi-year warranties, and indeed that's a good thing, but what happens once this warranty time runs out? All cars depreciate, be it ICE or EV, but a typical ICE car doesn't lose nearly all value as soon as it becomes seven or eight years old. With an EV, would it make an sense to pay the huge cost for new batteries, and still use the car? Or would it have to be scrapped at the end of the warranty period? If the whole car is junked every 8-9 years due to the prohibitive costs, is it really environmentally friendly anymore? Is it not greener to get more use out of a vehicle before it's scrapped? Are we undoing the good of the elimination of tail-pipe emissions with the vastly decreased life-span of a car?

[greenhorn]

Originally Posted by shyampsunder

Quite a funny report. This is like asking Nokia whether the future is only touchscreen-based phones or asking Kodak if the future is only digital photography.

The people surveyed here stand to lose out on an all-electric transformation of the auto industry, so it is obvious that they are pessimistic about it. Irrespective of whether someone is for or against complete electrification of PVs, this is a textbook example of a bad survey.

Alternately this is like asking a traditional banker if Bitcoin or cashless economy was going to be the future. While these are disruptive innovations, to an extent their cynicism is justified, just like the enthusiasm of those of those zealots who believe their idea is the one true solution.