The Cost of EV Adoption? Just $6 Trillion
Alternative fuel advocates often suggest that if society could simply get the lead out on solving the infrastructure problem, electric vehicle adoption would reach an all-time high. They’re most likely correct, too. With so much of the world set to gradually ban internal combustion vehicles, EV sales are almost assured to rise. But holdouts abound due to electric vehicles’ laundry list of shortcomings.
Electric cars are often more expensive than their combustion counterparts, offer diminished range, take longer to “refuel,” and are subjected to a charging network that’s less robust than than those associated with petroleum. If the industry is to solve those problems, it’s going to need a lot of money. Around $6 trillion should do the trick.
The estimate, surmised by Goldman Sachs and published by Bloomberg last week, claims the world would need to spend about 7.5 percent of its gross domestic product (or $6 trillion USD) on electric infrastructure to put EVs on equal footing. That’s almost unfathomable and doesn’t include money going toward vehicle assembly and battery development.
If you’re wondering who’ll pick up the check, you’ve probably seen them in the mirror. A large portion of EV adoption has been helped via government programs and tax breaks. But Goldman Sachs says that’s not a sustainable business model. It’s also warning that the transition costs will have to be reduced through additional government subsidies and support. Withdrawing support from the market too early, as was the case with Tesla in Denmark and Hong Kong, obliterates sales almost immediately.
The reality is that most automakers building EVs suffer from supply issues. Nor is the technology advancing as quickly as anyone would like. Storage capacity continues to improve but not at the pace automakers were hoping for. The end result is electric vehicles that are superior to what was on offer two years ago but are still prohibitively expensive to make and dependent upon hardware that’s in high demand globally. This is one reason you see automakers offering EVs in selective markets — it’s not just because companies don’t think they’ll sell everywhere, it’s because they absolutely can’t. Manufacturers aren’t able to build enough, and their clientele will prove less than receptive if there’s no local charging infrastructure to speak of.
Does this mean EVs are dead in the water? No. It just means they’ll have a longer, harder path than many initially assumed. It also means they’ll remain heavily dependent upon government action if they’re to continue gaining a share of the market over the next few years.
[Image: Nissan]
A staunch consumer advocate tracking industry trends and regulation. Before joining TTAC, Matt spent a decade working for marketing and research firms based in NYC. Clients included several of the world’s largest automakers, global tire brands, and aftermarket part suppliers. Dissatisfied with the corporate world and resentful of having to wear suits everyday, he pivoted to writing about cars. Since then, that man has become an ardent supporter of the right-to-repair movement, been interviewed on the auto industry by national radio broadcasts, driven more rental cars than anyone ever should, participated in amateur rallying events, and received the requisite minimum training as sanctioned by the SCCA. Handy with a wrench, Matt grew up surrounded by Detroit auto workers and managed to get a pizza delivery job before he was legally eligible. He later found himself driving box trucks through Manhattan, guaranteeing future sympathy for actual truckers. He continues to conduct research pertaining to the automotive sector as an independent contractor and has since moved back to his native Michigan, closer to where the cars are born. A contrarian, Matt claims to prefer understeer — stating that front and all-wheel drive vehicles cater best to his driving style.
More by Matt Posky
Latest Car Reviews
Read moreLatest Product Reviews
Read moreRecent Comments
- HotRod The Tunnel Turn at the "Tricky Triangle" (Pocono Raceway). I got to push a Nascar-style Dodge Intrepid harder than I ever imagined. I was miserable with shingles at the time, making the experience that much more memorable. But for a handful of laps I didn't feel anything but pure adrenaline.
- Redapple2 That is one busy face. Ford: Too much.
- SCE to AUX The video in the link is pretty damning, but the fix should be a simple mechanical repair. A code patch won't do it.
- SCE to AUX I get it, and yet I don't. Time has put a lot of distance between the 1964.5 and the 2025, and Ford has already sullied the Mustang name by putting it on a vehicle completely unrelated to this one.I guess 1965 somebodys will see fit to pay Ford and its local dealer a hefty premium to 'celebrate' the Mustang name.Are the 30th Anniversary Mustangs worth a nickel today? Better yet, how about the 10th Anniversary Mustangs?
- SCE to AUX Oddly, my 22 Santa Fe has higher HP and torque from its 2.5T/8DCT drivetrain, but it has similar fuel economy (22/28).Must be a different ECU tune for the Elantra N.
Comments
Join the conversation
"They’re most likely correct, too. With so much of the world set to gradually ban internal combustion vehicles, EV sales are almost assured to rise" ...and nobody sees a problem with this sort of totalitarian behavior? Anyone? Anyone?
Love cars and curbside classic. We replaced an SUV and ICE Sedan with a Chevrolet Bolt EV and Ford EV. First time we've ever owned only American cars as well! ICE vehicles seems like relics of a previous era in comparison when I get in one and I can't see myself every buying another one. We're eying a Tesla at some point and hopefully GM/Ford will come out with competitive EV's or they will lose a generation of buyers for a aspirational vehicle that isn't a 50 yr Anniversary Mustang/Camaro or they will be in the same pickle as Harley selling to aging out baby boomers.