US Electric Car Sales In November Stagnate As People Await New LEAF, i3, Model X, Bolt, Model 3…

Sign up for daily news updates from CleanTechnica on email. Or follow us on Google News!

Originally published on EV Obsession.

US EV Sales Nov 2015US electric car sales are in, and they aren’t particularly uplifting. The big deal hitting sales seems to be that people are waiting for a longer-range Nissan LEAF (or a much longer-range LEAF), a longer-range BMW i3, and the 200-mile Chevy Bolt (hitting the market ~1 year from now), and this has been killing sales of the Nissan LEAF, BMW i3, and nearly every other 100% electric model.

The only fully electric cars that saw higher sales in November 2015 compared to November 2014 were the Tesla Model S (basically, its production capacity has increased, so its sales have increased), the Volkswagen e-Golf (which had just hit the market about a year ago — 1 sale in October and 119 in November), and the Chevy Spark EV (a modest sales jump from 61 sales to 166 sales).

There are other potential reasons for the drop as well — low gas prices, people waiting for the Model 3, people opting for the new and improved Chevy Volt or the Ford Fusion Energi instead of a fully electric car… who knows?


Speaking of the Chevy Volt and Ford Fusion Energi, increased sales of those two plug-in hybrids drove the broader PHEV category’s 15% year-over-year increase. Volt sales increased 48% and Fusion Energi sales were up 26%. Together, they brought in 836 more sales. Kudos to GM and Ford for their continued growth… and simply making the cars available across the country!

Overall, monthly US electric cars sales have gotten a bit… predictable. I’m curious to see where they will be in one year, though. Between the Chevy Volt ramping up; the 2016 Nissan LEAF getting rolling; the Model X ramping up; new entrants like the BMW X5 xDrive 40e, Volvo XC90 T8, Audi A3 e-tron, and potentially Chevy Bolt leaving a mark; we could see a big change in the rankings next year.

For now, though, it’s again Tesla Model S #1, Chevy Volt #2, and Nissan LEAF #3, followed by a solid next 3 that change places from time to time — the BMW i3, Ford Fusion Energi, and, Ford C-Max Energi. And that order — just with the LEAF and Volt changing places due to strong LEAF sales and weak Volt sales earlier in the year — is essentially set in stone for the overall year-end ranking. Click on the full table for a look at more details:

US EV Sales 2015 - November 2015

*Tesla estimates (heavily requested by readers) are based on many statements and data points, such as official total sales numbers from Tesla, approximate US sales numbers based on a handful of statements by Elon Musk and registration numbers or media reports from numerous foreign countries, and Tesla sales projections. No doubt about it, the final numbers I report are estimates, but they are based on quite a lot of information.

**Fiat 500e numbers come from the California Clean Vehicle Rebate Project. They are only registration totals for California, but given that the 500e is hardly sold outside of California, we just use those totals as our cautious estimate of 500e sales.

Images: Ford Fusion Energi pictures by Cynthia Shahan, charts & table by Zachary Shahan | EV Obsession | CleanTechnica

Have a tip for CleanTechnica? Want to advertise? Want to suggest a guest for our CleanTech Talk podcast? Contact us here.

CleanTechnica Holiday Wish Book

Holiday Wish Book Cover

Click to download.

Our Latest EVObsession Video

I don't like paywalls. You don't like paywalls. Who likes paywalls? Here at CleanTechnica, we implemented a limited paywall for a while, but it always felt wrong — and it was always tough to decide what we should put behind there. In theory, your most exclusive and best content goes behind a paywall. But then fewer people read it!! So, we've decided to completely nix paywalls here at CleanTechnica. But...
Like other media companies, we need reader support! If you support us, please chip in a bit monthly to help our team write, edit, and publish 15 cleantech stories a day!
Thank you!

CleanTechnica uses affiliate links. See our policy here.

Zachary Shahan

Zach is tryin' to help society help itself one word at a time. He spends most of his time here on CleanTechnica as its director, chief editor, and CEO. Zach is recognized globally as an electric vehicle, solar energy, and energy storage expert. He has presented about cleantech at conferences in India, the UAE, Ukraine, Poland, Germany, the Netherlands, the USA, Canada, and Curaçao. Zach has long-term investments in Tesla [TSLA], NIO [NIO], Xpeng [XPEV], Ford [F], ChargePoint [CHPT], Amazon [AMZN], Piedmont Lithium [PLL], Lithium Americas [LAC], Albemarle Corporation [ALB], Nouveau Monde Graphite [NMGRF], Talon Metals [TLOFF], Arclight Clean Transition Corp [ACTC], and Starbucks [SBUX]. But he does not offer (explicitly or implicitly) investment advice of any sort.

Zachary Shahan has 7144 posts and counting. See all posts by Zachary Shahan

104 thoughts on “US Electric Car Sales In November Stagnate As People Await New LEAF, i3, Model X, Bolt, Model 3…

  • Google gives you a great opportunity to

    98652$/WEEk at your home .If you

    are some intelligent you make many more Dollars.I am

    also earning many more, my relatives wondered to see how i settle my

    Life in few days thank GOD to you for this…You can also make cash i

    never tell a lie you should check this I am sure you shocked to see

    this amazing offer…I’m Loving it!!!! ☻ ▼ ▼ ▼


    »»»»»»»»» Go to my Account For WE


  • If people are waiting for Model 3, it is gonna be a very long stagnation.

    • Get a short two year lease, and walk into a Model 3.

      • I would recommend at least a 3 year lease with the possibility to extend.

      • For a time you could get a Spark EV on lease for really cheap but the max 80 miles of range and slow charging is a huge hinderance since you will never put 80 actual miles between you and another charge on purpose. The Nissan Leaf has the same problem.

        It’s a 2nd or 3rd car but not a primary car.

        • A primary car if you are someone who hardly ever takes a long trip. And lots of people don’t drive long distances but fly.

          If you’re a ‘one big drive’ a year person the math probably works to rent a car for that.

          Sure, there are many households for whom a limited range EV won’t work as a primary car, but it’s not as rigid as you suggest.

          • They dropped the lease price to $139/month with no cash up front in August to clear their inventory but none of the dealerships near me had one. For that price I would have found a use for it.

            The average commute in the US is like 15 miles (and 25 minutes) each way so the Spark would definitely cover a lot of people’s needs as a commuter cars.

            Something like 50 miles is a marathon as far as commutes go and if you could plug the car in at work to be ready for the drive home it would still be possible. I don’t think I would regularly plan to drive more than about 60 miles between charges but as you correctly point out you don’t often need to.

            My situation is fairly different than most other people though so I would need another longer range car pretty often when I visit family, shop, run errands, drive to the airport etc. due to being in a very rural area.

          • I understand that. Going to the grocery store for me is a 120 mile RT.
            We do it twice a month.

      • 2 year lease don’t qualify for CA EV rebate.

      • I ended a three year lease in September…

    • Yup, even if Tesla delivers the Model 3 in time, they won’t have the production capacity to deliver as many cars as people want…

      • This is part of why I don’t think they should even bother launching the car at 35k base price. They won’t have nearly the capacity required to actually produce the amount of them they would require so why not launch at a higher price point with room for profit and lower the price over a couple years of models?

        They could even do this transparently so people don’t feel like they are getting ripped off. They might as well have them be $5K more base for the first year and use the money to offset R&D costs, fund factory expansion, fund the supercharging network, pay off higher interest loans or whatever they want since demand would still be vastly higher than supply even at that price point for the first year.

        It would be a really long line so if people are willing to throw money at Tesla for access to the first cars and subsidize my experience later I’m OK with it 🙂

        • Well, they totally will do that. The first Model 3 they launch isn’t going to be the smallest range, single engine model with cloth seats for $35k.

          It’s going to be the P65D, that goes 0 to 60 in sub 4 seconds, has a 240 mile range, AWD, leather seats, and a trunk the reconfigures itself to your luggage by analyzing your gait as you walk up to the car…

          Much like they did with the Model X, the first ones were the SIgnature Series models that are sold at a premium.

          • Right – they have never launched with the low end version. Anyone waiting for the base model of a Tesla had had to wait an additional year.

  • Worldwide EV sales are looking much healthier, with two apparently record months, and on-track to have about 40% growth over last year:

    I don’t know why there would be such a difference between global and US sales trajectories. I’m guessing that the US would be more sensitive to absolute fuel price changes than other countries, because it has a lower base price than most. But really, it could be anything.

      • It’s on the very bottom row of the first table. (Not exactly highlighted, so I can see how it could be missed.)

        Their estimate of YTD US sales is in bold/large red on the bottom right (102,898), below that is the overall 2014 US result (123,049) and then in the very last cell is YTD worldwide sales (386,301). This last number always seems to be a month late (so no November), but if you extrapolate conservatively (add about 35K cars per month to yield 456K cars for the 2015 year), and compare to the 2014 worldwide results (320,713; available in the second table on that page), you get roughly (and conservatively) 40% growth.

        I’d love to know how much of those are fully electric cars. (Or at least majority electric cars.)

        • Oh, thanks. I’m sure it’s a huge estimate, given that it’s very hard to find official EV sales in practically every country on earth, but hopefully there’s some decent logic behind it.

    • Yes and No. People in USA do buy more SUVs cause fuell is cheap… But its small vs big, not gass vs electric. In EU it too happens. Just EU/Asia have EV SUVs too match new demand

  • The Volt for me doesn’t have sufficient rear seat headroom. So, there’s the CMax, but this hasn’t been updated for a LONG time, giving me no faith Ford will continue to sell it. Ford Loves to abondon vehicles.

    So, that leaves next year’s Leaf, unless it doesn’t have Radar Collision Prevention.

    • How do you feel about the Volt rear center seat? Is it ok for you with the floor hump or not? It has seat belts for a the fifth passenger.

      • I’m still looking at the spec’s.
        I don’t expect the Volt to be a 5 passenger vehicle, except for kids younger then 16. Or three adults on very short trips.

        The Volt’s rear seat head room can just accommodate someone 6 feet tall. But kids are growing taller.

        So, I can’t get the current Volt.
        And I really hate to reward FORD for their weak commitment to the CMax. I’ll wait for next year’s Leaf.

        • “And I really hate to reward FORD for their weak commitment to the CMax.”
          -Ha. Indeed.

    • Here is a teaser for you – a headline you may find interesting “Ford investing additional $4.5B to add 13 new electrified vehicles by 2020; new fast-charging Focus Electric next year”

  • Do you have any data to support your assertion (and headline) that sales have “stagnated” primarily due to people waiting for new models? Have any surveys been conducted with prospective purchasers that you could reference?
    In the body you used the phrase “seems to be”, implying that it is the opinion or perception of the writer. You also point to other factors that might be influencing the sales slowdown. Which makes it all a bit iffy and dilutes the big banner headline somewhat.

    If you wish to be taken seriously as a credible source of information, it is important to separate fact from opinion.
    Nothing wrong with having an opinion, of course, and your assessment might even be accurate, but the headline implies that you KNOW something that the rest of us don’t.

    And you come across as a little biased, or as somehow trying to defend an inconvenient fact, which implies that this is an opinion piece rather than a news story.
    Which means it should be clearly labelled as such.

    In an old-fashioned newspaper, we would know we were reading the main editorial opinion, because of where it was located (by convention right next to the main editorial cartoon). Other “opinion pieces” could also usually be easily identified, also due to their location into the meat of the paper, and usually there would also be a little thumbnail picture of the journo, sorta suggesting a real human with opinions and perhaps even actual emotions etc. The “title” of the piece would be a bit more speculative. “Why do we want another Wal-Mart?” (The sort of thing we now associate with clickbait – questions and speculation, light on fact, trying to draw you in further by touching on an emotional trigger).

    By contract, a “hard news” story would usually have a very factual statement as a headline. “Springfield to get new Wal-Mart”. If I saw that headline, and happened to have a potential interest in such a story, I would scan the first paragraph to get the simple facts. That intro summary should answer my basic questions: Who, what, where, when, why, how ?
    And if I required more info I could read on further to get a broader context. This context would be based on some good old fashioned journalistic work, like digging through the county records to see whether the plans have already been approved, and getting verified numbers on how big the building will be, parking spaces etc, or getting a ‘phone interview with the regional manager of WalMart, or compiling a list of other big development projects in the local area, or comparing the size of the proposed store with others in the state to try to get an idea of where Springfield fits on the economic ladder, or getting a quote from the chairman of the local chamber of commerce as to how many jobs might be created or well, you get the idea.

    To be clear, most of my concerns are NOT related directly to stories with your personal byline; I have touched on some of my concerns before, involving others presumably in your employ.
    Maybe I just don’t understand this “new world” of online journalism and new media. Maybe the old rules of journalism simply no longer apply, and we need to accept the facebookification of information? I get that budgets are tight in online publishing, but I have a basic expectation that stories will be subjected to proof-reading (sub-editing) for coherence, spelling, grammar, etc before being posted. And let’s accept that not everyone is a writer… Being a “citizen journalist” is all well and good, but if there is not some form of quality control and filtering, I’m left with 7 billion “news sites” to choose from.

    Perhaps there are subtle clues that I’m missing, that would help me distinguish opinion pieces from hard news?

    I don’t enjoy being click-baited. I don’t enjoy being led to believe that certain information will be forthcoming in a story, only to read through it and discover that the I have been misled.
    I do like to find proper sources for any “facts” that are quoted, and I often enjoy links to “further reading” that might provide background on an unfamiliar topic.
    I don’t enjoy opinion masquerading as fact. And I don’t enjoy biased reporting.
    I don’t like reading through something only to realise it is a corporate press release, copy-and-pasted verbatim, with no editorial oversight, fact checking or broader context provided.
    And I definitely don’t like reading “advertorial” content that isn’t clearly labelled as such.

    In general, the standard of reporting on Cleantechnica is high, which is why I rely on the site as a news source. I actually enjoy many of the lighter stories, and the positive tone. The comment section is also well moderated and generally populated by a surprisingly well informed “community”.
    So that’s all good. Which is why I even bother to give my feedback. Because I’d like to see standards maintained, and even improved.
    It’s sad when a (potentially) good story is ruined by sloppy journalism.

    Peace out.

    • It depends on how you read it. If you accept it as the regular monthly stats table with Zach’s informal views on the possible explanations, which I do, then it makes sense.

      • Thanks. Yes, I guess for any regular readers that has long been clear. The stats are the stats. Trying to make out the story behind the stats is the other part of the game. It is what happens in just about every realm — sports, politics, economics, etc. Anyone who has followed the site long enough to know I put out monthly reports on EV sales should well know that those reports are supplemented by thoughts on why the numbers turned out the way they did — and, for that matter, it’s the same as several other sites do.

        • Hi Zach
          I am one of those “regular readers” and have been for some time (despite not commenting until recently). I enjoy reading the monthly reports and also enjoy the “game” of trying to understand what is happening in this nascent industry and to predict its future.
          You have my complete support in what you’re trying to do, which is to change the world for the better. ( I hope!)
          But if you’re only talking to people like me you’re not going to change the world.
          I’d like to see your message go out to a much wider audience so that you’re not simply “preaching to the converted”.

          Please see my reply to wattleberry posted below.
          And please read it in the spirit that it was intended. My recent flurry of comments is not intended as personal criticism in any way. You seem like a really nice guy. (And you have a hot sister; that always helps.) You seem to be motivated at least as much by ideology as by any personal financial interest.
          I’m actually on YOUR side in this battle. It’s a big battle. And it needs to be won by the right guys. Who are currently outnumbered and outgunned.
          So we need to fight a little smarter.

          It is with this in mind that I have been sharing my thoughts.

          • Thanks. No worries. I think I treat nearly all discussions and disagreements here like academic ones.

            And it is easy to get stuck in a bubble.

            Naturally, there are more challenges as the audience gets bigger and bigger. For the most part, we are (clearly) writing for cleantech enthusiasts — that’s who comes to the site every day — so we try to focus on what’s useful to them. However, any single story can get shared with “normal people” and (God forbid) Fox News fans. I try to keep that in mind, but I’m sure I slip and also at times have to choose between writing for our base or writing for a random passerby who may (by some slim chance) be open to a new but quite moderate perspective. In the end, though, no article is going to be perfectly tuned to every reader… unfortunately. Maybe that’s next-gen new media. 😀

            When I’m speaking to different audiences, the points I highlight definitely change a bit to try to match their level of interest and comfort zones… while bringing some new thoughts to them that will help them and help the world in some way.

            It’s definitely challenging, and being reminded of that importance doesn’t offend me in the least. So, thanks 😀

      • Sure, and I quite enjoy the less formal stories that Zach sometimes writes, aimed at the “regulars”. He is “preaching to the converted”.

        However, if Cleantechnia seeks to reinforce its position as a credible source of enviro-news, the site needs to be accessible to everyone, including the sceptics, unbelievers, unwashed masses and “false prophets”. It is especially important to maintain a balanced stance to avoid accusations of bias by those who would seek to discredit the site.

        The entrenched players in the current energy industry have an enormous amount to lose if/when the world transitions to renewable energy (as it inevitably must). The quicker it happens, the more they stand to lose. It is to be expected that they will “invest” significant amounts to sow confusions and doubt, to “divide and conquer” popular opinion. If 70% of the voting populace is properly informed, to the extent that they are pressuring their politicians to impose immediate carbon taxes, this ship gets turned around in less than a decade. So the old energy majors seek to scuttle any such consensus, in the time honoured tradition of archaic industries facing massive disruption. One of the best ways to do this is to “shoot the messenger”. (Hopefully not literally.) The paid PR manipulators for the industry will seek to label those calling for change as hippie liberals, or subsidy-sucking fatcats, or biased green media answering only to the solar lobby, or spolied rich kids showing off their fake green credentials by driving coal-fuelled supercars, or pretty much anything that helps to discredit those who hold views that don’t suit their agenda. The more popular a “voice” becomes (like this website), the more likely it is to be attacked and its motives questioned.

        For this reason we (those who understand the problem well enough to want to do something about it) need to hold ourselves to a higher standard. Avoid the temptation to get frustrated or angry or emotional or to gloat in the face of whatever “victories” we might enjoy. We cannot afford to alienate anyone. We should be seeking commonality with ANYONE who cares about the future, even if they hold different political, religious, or ideological views.

        The facts on their own should be enough to convince anyone, if they are presented patiently, coherently and consistently. You cannot change someone’s mind if you’ve antagonised them before they’ve even had a chance to hear your argument. It is thus necessary to convey the relevant information in a structured and logical way, from a balanced platform that acknowledges that differences of opinion may exist, and that we don’t know everything.

        There’s nothing wrong with having an opinion, and there’s nothing wrong with being passionate about your opinions. However, there is a time and a place for everything. If you’re reporting a story about lacklustre sales growth in the EV market, it is probably good to acknowledge that there are some people who believe that there is only a small market for EVs, and that these people would probably argue that the market is now reaching saturation. If there is compelling evidence to the contrary, then provide such evidence. Or perhaps quote someone credible who can make a convincing argument to refute the saturation hypothesis. There’s nothing wrong in conceding that there are competing theories (especially if you know that you have an ace up your sleeve, ready to be revealed shortly). If you have a personal theory or opinion, by all means voice it, but make it clear that it’s your own, and perhaps include a disclaimer that you’ve been wrong before.
        And if your opinion is that people are holding off for newer long-range models coming soon, it might be sensible to ask WHY. Right there, in the article. In writing. Ask the question. And perhaps admit that, despite evidence that most commutes are within the range of current BEVs, many consumers have indicated that they would prefer a vehicle with longer range. (And provide links to whatever well-researched evidence you have. Proper sources will always improve your credibility. In the absence of hard evidence, there is nothing wrong with providing empirical evidence, along the lines of “Visitors to the Cleantechnica site have frequently voiced this concern with comments like “I need 200miles for $30K” (Bob Smith) and “Call me when they can do 400km” (Carnut 1163)” as long as they’re real quotes. In this age of social media, those comments qualify as a “source”, along the lines of the street corner TV interviews with “the man in the street”. Getting the voice of the people and all that.
        The truth is that lots of people (myself included, TBH) would probably not consider ANY vehicle with a range of below about 350km. It doesn’t help to imply that they’re stupid for having this preference. And the overwhelming majority of the world’s population simply cannot or will not pay $70,000 for a any car, which is what long range BEVs currently cost. Again, there is no point in insulting these people. In any case, why would you want to, because the entire point of the story is that their wishes are about to be fulfilled.

        There is the potential for a GREAT news story here, one that would bring a great many previously hesitant people on board the EV train.

        All that is required is that the story be communicated a little differently.
        Instead of the hackneyed “Saint Elon saves the world again” type stories that are distressingly common in the “green” media, I’d love to see something along the lines of “The People have Spoken, and Motor Manufacturers are Listening”. Which one do YOU think would get a better reception from Joe Average?

        • “If you’re reporting a story about lacklustre sales growth in the EV market, it is probably good to acknowledge that there are some people who believe that there is only a small market for EVs, and that these people would probably argue that the market is now reaching saturation.”
          -You seem to be encouraging what is called “false balance.” It’s the hallmark of out of date “journalism.” There is no logical reason why EVs would have such a low saturation point, so acting like there is would be a disservice to humanity, imho.

          The range limitation is extremely well known. It the the most hyped aspect of EVs. Almost any CT readers would probably feel like I was dumbing things down to point out something so obvious when I’m already pointing out that people are waiting for longer-range models.

          I’m not sure what you are talking about as far as insulting people who want more range than a LEAF offers. I’ve never done that as far as I can remember. And see no reason to do that.

          Your last paragraph is baffling to me. It’s well known that many, many, many people are waiting for the Tesla Model 3. Now that it is ~2 years away, it is certainly hurting sales since more people are waiting it out for that model. We do have data on these topics from surveys of over >2000 people. I have written a 70-page report on that and related matters that will be published soon. But you don’t need to see such a report to know that many EV enthusiasts are waiting for longer-range affordable EVs.

          • Okay. Point taken. If this article is aimed at “us”, that all makes sense.

            I was imagining a hypothetical story with a much broader potential audience, a story that would be capable of winning the hearts and minds of many previously suspicious “red-state”, anti-hippie, hardworking, horsepower-loving regular people. My perception (based on comments I’ve read across various platforms) is that one of the things currently holding back EVs is the shrill message of some of the people advocating them. There’s this holier-than-thou vibe that a lot of people seem to have, often combined with “You obviously can’t afford a Tesla so you don’t qualify to have an opinion”. Really smug and self-righteous and almost guaranteed to annoy any normal person. You can’t blame these normal people for arriving at the conclusion that EV drivers are a bunch of pompous pricks, and for not wanting to drive one themselves.

            In terms of the “false balance” aspect, I was simply saying that there’s nothing wrong with raising commonly-cited objections, and then destroying them with facts. Again, probably not required in a story aimed at your regular reader, but certainly appropriate in a piece that might be intended for a general audience.

            As to insulting people who believe they need longer-range vehicles, I’m not accusing you of having done that personally. But there is certainly a general vibe that one gets, when reading through a range of “enviro-media” stories and the comments, that people are deemed irrational if they want a vehicle with longer range. I seem to recall one or two articles on CleanTechnica decrying (belittling?) the use of the term “Range Anxiety”. Some of the comments are particularly scathing, and in fact downright rude, when regular people come on here to voice their opinions. Accusations of FUD (and worse) are thrown about, when it is sometimes clear that the person commenting is simply a regular person, perhaps curious about the whole EV thing, who has come aboard to share his/her personal (and yes, sometimes uninformed) opinion. Methinks we should be trying to welcome these people and provide them with well-researched information and positive feedback.

            My point is simply that it doesn’t make sense to alienate people who might well be willing to switch from ICE to EV within a few years simply because they’re not ready to do so right now.

            If there is a “community” of people who are passionate about issues of sustainability, let us ensure that such community is open and inclusive, and is able to tolerate different opinions and lifestyles. Otherwise the community is going to remain too small to do what urgently needs to be done. We need all the help we can get. There is no “us and them”. Only one world. We are ALL “us”.

            I look forward to the results of your survey.

          • “There’s this holier-than-thou vibe that a lot of people seem to have.”

            — I see a lot of comments about that, but I don’t think it’s really the case. I think that’s just how people are (mis)reading things in text without having any real sense of tone or demeanor. But maybe I’m wrong. And in any case, maybe people need to be much more cautious in how they word and couch things.

            I think people are also projecting due to their own jealousy about not being able to afford a Tesla. Very easy to do. But who knows?

            These sales reports I do have been referenced by the New York Times, so I do think it’s important to keep in mind that people in the mainstream media may be reading them and need to be as educated as possible about the broader story. That’s why I bring in things like people waiting for the next LEAF or Chevy Bolt, which a normal reporter might not realize, yet is critical to the story.

            Regarding range anxiety, as many have indicated, it may be better termed “range anxiety anxiety.” It is typically coming from people who don’t have EVs before they have experience with them. Yes, trying to go on a multi-state trip in a Nissan LEAF could be very challenging and even stressful, but what many owners have found is that it’s much simpler living with an EV than they expected. I know many LEAF drivers expected to charge every night, but ended up charging every other night. Countless times, I’ve seen people write that they were concerned about range anxiety before getting an EV but that fear wore off quite quickly after they had one.

            The mainstream media hugely focuses on “range anxiety” and I’m of the opinion it gets something like 500% of the attention it deserves. Explaining the perspective of actual EV drivers is important to better educating non-EV drivers and showing them it may be easier to go electric than they think. When you take into account things like homes often having 2 cars and only using one of them for long trips, it becomes more obvious that EVs could replace many of the cars on the road today. But I’ve never seen these points made in the mainstream media, so I think it’s important to keep repeating these things so that non-EV drivers learn them sooner than later.

          • But as I try to always emphasize, it’s an individual matter, and we all have to evaluate the options to the best of our abilities for our own needs and preferences.

          • Absolutely. People are wary of change, but they CAN change their habits. And once they do, they often realise that their fears were unwarranted. That is just human nature.
            There are many ways to help people overcome their fear of change.
            The SECOND-best way to encourage people to make a scary change is probably to keep reassuring them with solid factual information.
            The best way is almost certainly to simply lead by example.

            Hopefully, all of this will soon become irrelevant. With a whole slew of affordable, longer range EVs expected to be available within the next 18-24 months, there will be minimal behavioural changes involved. People will not be required to make any significant sacrifices, or changes to their daily habits. It will soon become obvious, even to “regular” people, that EVs are simply better and more convenient.
            Once that happens, word-of-mouth should do the trick, and I suspect that the transition might happen sooner than even the optimists could have imagined.
            The ideologically-motivated early adopters are to be commended for doing their bit. But altruism can only go so far. To change the world, you need to appeal to people’s baser instincts. Once people start buying EVs for reasons that are selfish, lazy and blindly fashion-conscious, the transition will happen, without any proselytising required.

        • “f “The People have Spoken, and Motor Manufacturers are Listening”.”

          Is that a lie you wish to tell? ;o)

        • Every single report on the stock market moves each day says “Stocks were down/up because XXX”. They are making up XXX *every single time*.

          Accordingly, I think it’s quite reasonable for Zachary to come up with an educated guess for why sales are stagnant. It’s more responsible than every single major newspaper’s stock market section.

    • This is not a newspaper. Is it?

      • No, but the site does attempt to serve a similar role as a newspaper.

        Sometime articles aren’t as good as they might be. Constructive criticism can help.

        Truthfully, there doesn’t seem to be enough money in internet blogging to pay for investigative reporting, the type one might expect on a large city newspaper or major news journal.

        Sometimes, I suspect, authors get in a hurry because they are trying to pump out enough stories to pay their rent.

        That’s not an attempt at an excuse, only an explanation.

    • Sorry, I didn’t think it read as a statement of fact. To me, the two are very obviously linked, so including mention that a lot of people are waiting for these models (which we have identified from surveys to be true) makes sense and isn’t misleading. I think it was pretty clear in the text that nobody has a definitive answer on that, but maybe I’m living in too much of a bubble from closely covering this industry for so long — some things are just obvious at that point.

      • Again, I’m not having a go.
        I concede that my perspective is rather “old school”, and that my expectation for complete impartiality and “pure” journalism might no longer be reasonable in this new age of information. I get that CleanTechnica is “just a blog” and that you don’t owe me (or anyone else) anything.

        That being said, I think it is possible (and in fact necessary) to stake a claim to some sort of high ground. Whilst CleanTechnica may have started out as a blog, I believe that it has now evolved into something more than that. As the site has risen above the babble of the blogosphere, many might
        now have an expectation of a higher, more “journalistic” standard. Precisely because of your broad knowledge of all sorts of environmental issues, CleanTechnica has become a go-to resource for a wide range of people, beyond the original audience of loyal readers.

        This presents both opportunities and challenges. How you address the challenges will probably dictate the future of the site.

        My personal opinion, for what its worth: I think you owe it yourself to err on the side of quality rather than quantity going forward.
        And perhaps it might be possible to somehow differentiate between the serious hard news stories and the more bloggy opinion pieces? So that people know before hand what sort of tone to expect. Just an idea…

        I apologise for peppering the comment threads with potentially off-topic musings. I’d be happy to have some of these conversations in a less public forum, if you’re interested. (I don’t pretend to be an expert at anything, but I do have some knowledge and experience of how this stuff works.)

        Best of luck with your efforts. I’ll be off now….

        • All well said, and I appreciate it.

          I’ll say that my prime goal on the site for the past year or so (and the foreseeable future) has been to increase the depth and quality of our articles. Still plenty ways to go to perfect that, but lucky to be at the level where we can at least focus on that goal.

          As far as separating news from opinion, that is something I need to think more about. It’s something that comes up from time to time and I’m not a fan of the idea. I prefer a “normal” life-like situation where experts discuss news and add their own perspective when doing so, as if we were having a discussion in an academic conference-like environment. But I think I see the point and the benefits.

          Happy to connect with you on email. Have ~400 emails to catch up on, so won’t email yet 😛 But plan to reach out so we can have such conversations on the side as well, as I already do with several other long-time readers whose opinions I highly respect.

          Thanks for sticking your neck and and chiming in with the intent to improve our work and help the world. As the controversial character Elon Musk recently said, “Why wouldn’t you try to make the future better, if you are going to be a part of it.” (And I would add: even if you aren’t going to be a part of it.)

    • Regarding the broader issues, yep, this is a blog — not a newspaper. Journalism can be part of blogging, and it is in our case, but these things are not at all synonymous.

      If we ever run an advertorial, it is *very* clearly labeled, so I’d rather you not make implications that we do otherwise. It’s a bad assumption.

      We do have 4 editors on staff and nearly every article does go through one or two of them. But mistakes happen. Even iconic papers like the New York Times routinely have to correct mistakes, and I see more errors in mainstream media coverage of these topics than anywhere else, unfortunately.

      But back to the issue I think you had here, you do recognize that experts on various topics are often asked to provide their thoughts/insights in response to big news. I’m clearly an expert in this field (and I’m not saying that with any arrogance, I believe, but if you look at the facts, that’s quite clear) and when I report on some news I often infuse my own thoughts. I think it’s pretty darn clear, but I’ll keep a close eye on that just to be extra sure. In this case, to not realize that people awaiting the 2016 & 2017 LEAF, the Chevy Bolt, the next i3, and the Model 3 are limiting EV sales is sort of ridiculous, from my perspective. It’s like not acknowledging that people buy flip flops more in summer.

      But yes, facts and opinions get mixed all the time here. It’s actually something I request of writers. Blogging is not journalism, even if it includes journalism. Blogging is blogging. I guess coming to accept that is a process that we all have to go through… or not.

      • Bluntly, every journalist ever has injected opinions into their journalism. I prefer it when they’re upfront about it.

        I mentioned before that every single article which says “Stocks are up/down because XXX” is just making up XXX. Zachary’s informed speculation that customers are waiting for the new models is a lot more responsible than that.

  • Overheard:
    “It’s called the Model 3 because that’s how many years you’re going to have to wait.”

    (And I heard that about three years ago. Let’s hope it’s not a moving target.)

    • We should have a good idea in three months. That’s when the production model is scheduled to be shown.

      Given that Tesla already has a working car factory and that the Gigafactory is ahead of schedule it’s fairly likely that they will be able to start selling the Mod3 on time.

      But, hey, how many of us have completed every single project when we expected?

      • So when is the actual time that’s the real on time? Even Musk have been moving the time so he is really unreliable in the real world and of course the Teslaratis are approving his every alibi, you know more earth shattering features added to salivate all over and worth the extra time. Bwahahaha!

        • How would anyone know the ‘real’ time? In order to known exactly when something will occur would necessitate knowing all the things that might or might not happen between then and now.

          How would Tesla have known that their drivetrain supplier would deliver an under-strength unit for the Roadster, thus delaying its release?

          I view Tesla’s dates as targets they hope to hit. Others seem to view their dates as weapons they can use to attack Tesla.

      • BTW GM has completed the Chevy Volt Gen 2 and the Chevy Bolt well ahead of their first forecasted tests and production. Musk should be ashamed if he is boasting about Tesla’s schedule and target prices.

        • How’s GM getting along with their supercharger system and gigafactory battery project?

          I haven’t seen Musk “boast” about Tesla’s production schedule. It is what it is.

          As for price, we’ll have to wait and see. Right now the Mod3 is expected to be $2,500 less than the Bolt. But neither company has released final numbers.

          I’m amazed that people who want to see climate change limited look for ways to hate on Tesla….

          • “I’m amazed that people who want to see climate change limited look for ways to hate on Tesla…” This surprises me as well.

            Fortunately around here the opinion doesn’t come up often but I still meet plenty of people that believe EV’s carry toxic batteries and aren’t “green” at all…. Then there is the Tesla haters simply because they are for the rich… I could go on but fortunately I don’t share those views and I believe over time people will come around.

            The Model 3 and Bolt will help to do that, hopefully.

          • There’s a tremendous amount of desire among many of us to see faster reduction in greenhouse gases. We see (at least we think we see) the routes off fossil fuels and we want the people with the power and resources to move faster than they are.

            I suspect some people intellectually understand why Tesla needs to start with a luxury car and build to a Corella killer EV. But emotionally they want Tesla to produce the Corella killer now. Yesterday.

          • Information is key and it will start spreading in earnest soon I think/hope. Once there is significant EV choice and availability in an affordable range and the advertising dollars start flowing information will travel fast and people will realize the benefits.

          • Indeed. Or they just forget. IDK. But it’s quite obvious if you take a broad view that Tesla wouldn’t be here today if it tried to start with the Model 3.

          • Currently (and since 2011) they have dedicated double battery production pretty much just waiting…

            But their supplier supplies other manufactuers, and they have ramped their production steadily inline with sales.

            Interestingly, they have also innovated, and started production on dramatic chemistry improvements.

            So whine less, read more…

          • You mean LG Chem is making progress on batteries. We knew that.

            GM is a purchaser of batteries. GM is looking for other companies to do the heavy lifting on batteries. And has yet to say anything public about long distance charging. Who’s going to want to drive a Bolt more than 200 miles if it takes hours to recharge?

            Just to finish, LG expects to be able to manufacture enough cells for 450,000 EVs to Panasonic/Tesla’s 500,000. But LG has to spread that output over 20 different customers.

        • No, Volt 2.0 production has been delayed. Was supposed to be on sale by now, or at least by the beginning of 2016. Now spring of 2016.

      • A small but relevant correction, that’s when they are showing the first prototype/concept model.
        A production model is most likely at least 2 years away to be shown.

        • “In its third quarter 2015 shareholder letter released today, Tesla reiterated that it plans on showing its Model 3 — a critical vehicle for the company that is expected to bring Tesla within reach of middle-class car buyers — in March of next year. CEO Elon Musk first said it’d be shown in March 2016 in May of this year, but for a company that has seen its share of delays, there are no guarantees. Commercial availability of the Model 3 would likely come in 2017.”

          That does not say “prototype” or “concept”.

          Production is expected in 2017. Since 2015 is about over that makes production less than 2 years away.

          Do you have some facts to back your claim or are you just making up …..?

          • I guess they could be the first car company in history to show an actual production vehicle 2-3 years before it’s going into production.




            And just like the Model X (and S before that)


          • First company to market a 200+ mile range EV.

            First company to install a nationwide rapid charging system.

            First company to build a giant battery factory.

            If Tesla’s goal is to change the type of cars we drive then there will likely be a few more firsts.

          • I know what Tesla has done, I’ve been following the company for a decade. It’s also one of my absolute favorite companies and there will be at least two Model 3’s in the extended family, possible even two in my family (and therefor three in the extended family).

            Second one is not correct though. First company to install a nationwide rapid charging system was ELMO in Estonia. And if you don’t count that as it being government run then Clever in Denmark and FastNED in the Netherlands were done with that before Tesla.

            Tesla does smart things, being the first to put out a production vehicle that early would be a very stupid thing. It would mean that they stop every possibility of improving the Model 3 before it goes into actual production. So it’s a good thing for Tesla that you’re not right about this.

          • ELMO was built by a car company? Which one? And how rapid is their rapid?

          • That one is government based, and no not a car company. It would take you less than a minute on google to find out that one is Chademo based and they were doing 50 kW.

          • Thank you. (I knew both of those facts without googling.)

            Now let’s go back a few comments. We were talking about Tesla/car companies. I pointed out that Tesla had a few firsts including first company to ” install a nationwide rapid charging system”.

            ELMO was not installed by a car company but a government. And Chademo is not exactly rapid. Some of the Superchargers are cranking out more than 120 kWh.


          • We were talking about Tesla, which competes in many areas and not only against other car companies. You said the first company to install a nationwide rapid charging company, but if we specify it a bit more then we agree. First car company is definitely Tesla which has at least two countries covered nationwide in Switzerland and Luxembourg, and a few more countries if we are a bit generous.

          • “I guess they could be the first car company in history to show an actual production vehicle 2-3 years before it’s going into production.”

            “First company to market a 200+ mile range EV.

            First company to install a nationwide rapid charging system.

            First company to build a giant battery factory.

            If Tesla’s goal is to change the type of cars we drive then there will likely be a few more firsts.”

            I guess I could have said first car company, but it didn’t’ seem necessary in context.

          • Okay. I have no proof. What are your proofs that it is a production model? All you have showed is that they are showing the Model 3, nothing about what stage that car is at. How likely do you find it that it will be the production vehicle? And are you capable of admitting that you were wrong about it not being a production vehicle when there is proof spoken or in text or when the next prototype or even the real production vehicle is shown?

          • I never have trouble admitting I’m wrong when someone shows me facts.

            Tesla said they are showing the Model 3. Since I don’t see “concept” or “prototype” in front of “Model 3” I assume they plan to show the Model 3.

          • I agree the direct language seems to indicate it may be a production vehicle but admittedly they also don’t add the word “production” so the omission of “concept” and “prototype” doesn’t necessarily mean much either…Either way that simple sentence doesn’t confirm or deny if the Model 3 will change or not from the March unveil.

            Fortunately, in the past Tesla has not changed the vehicles very much at all from initial unveils to production vehicles. So regardless of which type of unveil this is we can expect to see a vehicle very close to the production vehicle.

          • I’m going to bet on prototype. Tesla does not do “concept”.

            Tesla’s driveable prototype for the Model S was released about a year before the actual Model S was released. So that’s a target they can hit.

          • Yes, they are showing the Model 3. No, it’s not the production vehicle. A production vehicle is one that is produced in a number of (almost) identical copies, like a normal mass produced car. The term has also been expanded to include a car that companies show that will go into production as it is.
            So that is when they can order all parts because there will be no more changes.

            The Model 3 is a long way from going into production so what they naturally will show in April is a vehicle they are still working on and will improve until they get close to put it into production.
            In the case of Tesla it’s a good thing that it’s a prototype they will be showing since Elon has stated many times that Tesla will always make the production vehicle better than any concept or prototype they show.
            Just like they did with the Model S and the Model X.

          • So what, in your opinion, Tesla will show this spring is the car they intend to manufacture starting some months later.

            And if they come up with some tweeks to make it a better car between then and later they’ll likely tweak.

            I can live with that.

            Tesla tweeks after they’ve started production. They even tweak the cars they’ve already sold.

          • My opinion is that they will show a prototype of the Model 3 that is very similar to the production model (basically the production model minus a number of improvements along the way until everything is set).

            Just like they have done with the Model S and the Model X. But this time around it will most likely be even closer to the production vehicle since it needs to be much more cost effective, stream lined and production friendly than the more luxurious models they have released.

            The concept will be clear, but every solution will not be there yet (that’s what they have got 2 years plus most likely some general delay).

            Some of the things that will be very interesting to see is how far they have come on the new motor and the if they have the new battery form factor, hopefully they will reveal more info about it, except for the most obvious of approximately how it will look.

            Some comparison can be done to the production vehicle of the Model X:


            And what one of the many prototypes was like 2-3 years before that:


          • “They even tweak the cars they’ve already sold.”

            That’s one of the coolest aspects of the Tesla company. A Tesla Model 3 is going to be my second electric car. I can’t wait that long for the first one.

      • Yeah. School fees have certainly been paid. Have lessons been learned? We;ll have to wait and see…
        I’m hoping that development of the “everyman” Tesla will not get bogged down by whimsical stylistic details like “sculptural” seating, avian door openings and acres of glass.
        One assumes that the design process and production ramp will be a lot smoother this time, especially if the offering is kept simple. I’m hoping that the entire engineering philosophy for Mod3 is going to be predicated on the idea of an affordable “people’s car” rather than a high margin test bed for innovative ideas.
        Less ego. More car.
        But I still don’t think there’s any chance of us seeing one here in South Africa before the end of the decade. Might just need to do a special import…

        • It’s not “ego”. It’s building a car that appeals to deep pocket buyers so that Tesla can sell their first rounds of EVs for a high GPM and finance their expansion.

          The next release, the Mod3, will have to be “fancy” enough to pull buyers away from the BMW 3-series type buyers. This won’t be the Corella killer.
          If Tesla can build up to 500,000 cars per year with the Mods S, X and 3 then they can likely have the revenue stream to launch an even less expensive EV sometime after 2020. It’s a step process. Creating enough battery manufacturing volume to get battery prices down to $100/kWh or less is the key, there’s no instant route from $1000/kWh where batteries were only a few years ago to $100/kWh.

          I suspect you’re right about seeing Teslas sold in SA soon. Although you probably stand a better chance than other low market countries due to Musk’s origin.

          In the meantime, you folks need to quit screwing around with nuclear and get on with a robust RE program.

          • I understand the whole top-down approach and why they chose to do it that way. I just think that they’re trying to over-impress with all the doo-dads, when most people would be quite happy to pay a premium for a Tesla on the strength of all its other benefits.
            It’s an SUV! Its electric! It goes 200 miles a charge! Zero to Sixty in OHMYSWEETJEEPERS.
            And, of course, it’s a frikkin Tesla!
            It doesn’t NEED those fancy doors. By all means provide them as an option for those prepared to shell out an extra ten grand, but don’t let that delay the development of the vehicle by 28(?) months, or create production bottlenecks or warranty issues that could destroy the company.

            And South Africa HAD a robust RE plan, one that provided a template on which lots of other countries based theirs. (Involving lowest bidder PPAs for new capacity, etc.)
            But then Mr Zuma met Mr Putin. And apparently an “African Handshake” was exchanged….

          • I don’t get the problem some people have with the falcon wing doors. They look very functional to me and I suspect they are going to be popular.
            Sliding mini-van doors would have been really tacky.

          • I think a lot of people think they don’t have a practical purpose (which they obviously do) and that they are likely to break a lot (yet to be seen, but as I think you have pointed out before, people were also scared about the reliability of automatic windows… change is hard for most people).

          • In the beginning, the first automatic windows WERE problematic.
            Notoriously so. As were the first automated sunroofs. And rear-views mirrors. To use a cricketing analogy, very difficult to hit the first ball of the innings for a six. (And yes, that has happened, but it’s very rare.
            It generally takes a while for ANY new technology to get the kinks worked out. And the more innovative and groundbreaking the technology, the more likely it is to have unforseen problems. It’s just too difficult to predict every single real world situation and engineer around it, without any knowledge base to work from. History is replete with examples of SECOND mover advantage. The company that made the giant creative and technological breakthrough was not able to see it through, even though they got it 95% right.
            The company that “copies” the technology only needs to get the other 5% right, because the “first mover” has learned all the expensive lessons on their behalf. And they already know HOW to fix the problems, because they can analyse broken bits to see what went wrong.

            Don’t get me wrong. I really want to see Tesla succeed. And it is precisely because I so desperately want them to succeed that I wish they had offered the FWDoors as an option.
            If the goal is to hasten the transition to sustainable transportation, how do these doors contribute to that?
            The risk/reward ratio, from a purely business point of view, is not favourable. All the positives could have been achieved by optioning the FW doors, at an add-on price that could have included a premium for future maintenance/recall risk.
            The negatives would be significantly curtailed if only a small fraction of the fleet went out with the fancy doors.
            I’ve been sitting on the sidelines for almost a year, with an X’s worth of $ in a separate account, waiting to buy Tesla stock. I’ve been waiting for a single announcement from the company, that they would be optioning the doors on the X. I fully expected them to do that early this year, when it became clear that the doors were delaying production. And then again at the time of the launch, when the rapid ramp up was promised. And then again when Elon tweeted the clarification that the “normal” price for non Sigs would be S+5k.
            And I’m still hoping that it’s going to happen soon, before too many vehicles are shipped with a potential “Trojan Horse” design flaw. I sincerely believe that this single decision has the ability to sink the company.
            I really hope it doesn’t happen. But in the meantime I’m sitting on my money, still hoping for them to take a decision that to me seems obvious.
            I might even consider buying the vehicle itself, if they ever make it to SA. But not if I’m obliged to take the fancy doors. For all sorts of reasons, I’d actually PREFER an X with regular doors. And I suspect that there are lots of others like me.

            And I agree with Bob that sliding doors would not have worked at all. But I suspect that many people would be perfectly happy with good old-fashioned front-hinged doors. If it aint broke, don’t fix it, goes the saying. Coulda been offered as a lower-priced option, and many people would have jumped at the chance IMHO, especially those that envision the X more as an SUV than a minivan. How many Porsche Cayennes and BMW X5s have been sold in the last few years, despite the glaring absence of any Falcon Wings doors? And they CONTINUE to be sold, even though FW doors are now a “thing”!
            If the patents are open sourced, and there’s such a demand, why aren’t all the other companies scrambling to get on board?
            So yeah. I hope I’m wrong. But those doors are just too complicated for my liking. Too many things that could go wrong. Too many new parts in the bin to complicate an already byzantine procurement program. Too many individual assembly steps.
            I might be wrong, but it appears that X and S will be sharing the same final assembly line for some time. In which case any delays in the one would slow (or halt) the production of the other.
            That would be bad. Very bad.
            And no, I’m not a shorter. Sure, I’d like to buy at a good price, but I held off buying at $191 in early April and would balk again at that price, because of the potential hidden liability contained in those doors.
            Maybe I’m just paranoid. I hope so.

          • Maybe Faraday Future, or Google or Apple, will be the second mover. I know the old-line car companies won’t; they just plain won’t do it.

            Front-hinged doors (sigh) wouldn’t have had that SUV opening width — or would have been hard to squeeze in and out of. Interestingly, Elon has said that the falcon wing doors were NOT the most troublesome part of the design. They have had massive trouble with the second row seats. And the third row seats. You’ll notice the extra seats suddenly became options.

          • The popping-out door handles on the Model S were stupid, but they sold a hell of a lot of cars (I am *amazed* at how popular they were — people are constantly impressed by them, though I wasn’t) and didn’t cost that much. The stated goal was to reduce the coefficient of drag, but they don’t help that much.

            The “falcon wing doors” are actually serving a function. A standard sliding door for an SUV really ruins the aerodyanmic envelope of the car. They wanted to keep the Coefficient of Drag low in order to keep the range of the car high, which meant they *needed* the door to open in a different manner. Not obvious to most people, but that was the reason.

      • The old expression construction “always costs more and takes longer than you expect” has been around for quite some time. With big projects (in this case building a brand new car/factories/lines/etc) there are always unforeseen challenges. I am in the home building business and even knowing things “cost more and take longer” we still manage to blow the schedule from time to time…

        “Life doesn’t care about your plans…life happens”

  • This just shows that mediocre EV’s are not being entertained while oil prices are relatively low. Tesla is not being affected because it is being purchased by people who don’t actually care about the cost of oil. They just want the best vehicle.

    • Might be true. Studies have shown no correlation between oil prices and EV sales, but maybe there is now. Hard to know. Most people today don’t buy EVs to save money, though. They buy them to fight global warming, to cut air pollution, to cut oil dependence for political reasons and economic security, and because they’re cool and fun new tech.

      • “They buy them to fight global warming, to cut air pollution, to cut oil dependence for political reasons and economic security, and because they’re cool and fun new tech.”

        When I get mine I’m going to put a bumper sticker on it that says “Stop funding terrorists, get an electric car”.

          • I’m glad you like it. Feel free to use it. The more the message gets out, the better.

  • In a sense this may be a bit of a good thing. It may mean that more people are paying attention to EVs and when these longer range models come out we may have a large influx of buyers. This slump may just say people are paying attention.

      • What worries me is the current spate of Petroleum Institute placing ads on TV exhorting people to “Vote for Energy”, meaning oil and gas. And of course not a word about the greenhouse effect that consumption entails. I suspect the timing is coordinated to offset the press coverage that the COP21 is getting. I wish that the renewable industry would counter with some ads explaining the effect of that fossil fuel burning and exhort people to “Vote for Renewables”. But, their resources are like a flea in an elephants back in comparison.

        • Luckily, I don’t see those. 😛

          “But, their resources are like a flea in an elephants back in comparison.”
          -Indeed. Elon made a comment about that in his speech in Paris, saying Exxon had more money for lobbying than the entire US solar industry.

  • Thanks for the statistics. They are interesting for those following our nascent EV saga. However, I feel the need to comment that mixing EV and hybrid statistics are confusing to those who really want to understand what is happening in this industry. Maybe next time publish two sets of data – one containing only EV vehicles and a second containing only hybrid vehicles.

    • Thanks. Note that we only include plug-in hybrids (a subset of plug-in electric vehicles) and I do separate them in a few ways: 1) the pure EVs are in bold in the chart, 2) they also have a darker shade of green there, 3) they are in blue in the table, 4) and there are 3 totals (one for all plug-in cars, one for 100% electric cars, and one for PHEVs). Hope that is helpful.

      • Thanks for pointing this out. You’ve done a marvelous job amassing the data and presenting it.

  • You really should do cross Atlantic analysis.

    It’s lack of EV SUV that is hurting US sales. EU show two digit rise in sales even though they too wait for newer models!

    • I do a bit, but official data that is also comprehensive is very hard to come by in Europe. The only country where I can really gather it is Norway… and sometimes France. Have looked at and gotten in touch with a number of official government bodies who have the statistics (in Germany and UK, for example) and had no luck. I know Jose Pontes does reports on those, but I’ve found his data to be incorrect at times and that he includes a lot of estimates (read: guesses), which I’m uncomfortable with.

  • How did the US supply of plug-ins get so tepid? The EU and China both have more options, and more sales.

    • idk. i assume it has to do with regulations/requirements. manufacturers have done what they need to do in California and other ZEV states, and they now are forced to step it up in the EU (hence all of the PHEVs from Mercedes, BMW, VW…).

Comments are closed.