The electric F-150 is a niche vehicle and Ford is only pretending it is for the mass market. Their massive Tennessee factory, currently under construction, will be producing their mass market truck:
Depends on what you mean by safer. If you are hitting an F-150 you will be safer in a F-150 yourself than a smartcar. If you are a pedestrian you would rather be hit by a smartcar.
Many of these Chinese vehicles have the safety features of a 1950's era vehicle, so without airbags, good construction techniques for absorbing force, etc. I imagine they would all get horrible safety ratings by Consumer Reports.
However, if energy scarcity pushes us globally toward a situation where we need more essential cars for slower, shorter routes, then it would make sense to downgrade a bit those tests, as the typical use would be closer to a Topolino driving 70km/h on a country road than an M8 dashing at 170km/h on the highway.
Well, that doesn't really matter, does it? Vehicles provide transportation from A to B for occupants and cargo. If a small vehicle suffices, then larger ones shouldn't be necessary. Of course, this is also a challenge for planning infrastructure in a way that large vehicles are not necessary in population centers (which should, by definition, be built for people, not large cars).
I’ve been in China recently, one of the most popular forms of transport is the electric scooter. They outnumber cars around me. Many people just don’t bother with cars.
The list of top cars by model is quite interesting. Some of the Chinese cars are golf carts but most would decently sized and attractive by US standards.
So.. its switching from petrol to coal?
Unless they really ramp up nuclear and solar. Which they did not so far..
And dont forget, the first 100.000 kilometers of energy are already spent driving of the lot, building a new car. So fading away old cars as slow as possible is the most energy efficient strategy?
> And dont forget, the first 100.000 kilometers of energy are already spent driving of the lot, building a new car. So fading away old cars as slow as possible is the most energy efficient strategy?
No it is not a good strategy. It is better to replace oldest cars first, because they are usually least efficient, but even if you replace new ICE car, that car does not disappear - it will probably be sold and replace old, less efficient ICE car.
Coal is awful, but also keep in mind that it’s shipped to centralized locations to be burned.
Gas for cars is shipped to a distribution center, loaded onto trucks that are immensely heavy and require loads of fuel to haul, shipped to a local distribution center, loaded onto trucks, driven somewhere else, pumped into a station, then those trucks drive back, and people often drive out of their way for gas instead of just charging at their destination. (Nobody has a gas station at their house and few desirable stores include gas stations)
It’s entirely possible that this process ends up using more energy than just burning coal.
That would still be a win for cities there.
But it looks like coal and non-renewables' share of electricity there is now declining too, from roughly 4/5 to 2/3 in the last decade* (a lot of that is due to wind energy, which is rapidly ramping up there.
China is building and planning new coal power plants more than the rest of the world combined.
Share it's droppibg but China alone will pollute much more than everyone else combined.
> The first 100.000 kilometers of energy are already spent driving of the lot, building a new car
China is the leader of electric 2-seater cars (Wuling Mini, Geely Panda Mini).
Comparison between a Wuling Mini and a Tesla Model 3:
- battery weight: ~100 kg vs. 500+ kg
- total weight: ~600 kg vs. 1,600+ kg
- retail price: ~5,000 EUR vs. ~50,000 EUR
I doubt it takes as much energy to break even on a Wuling Mini than it does on a Model 3.
A better question would be - why should Europeans be excluded from affordable electric Chinese cars because of the political chess between the US and China?
Assuming they never move away from fossil fuels, it's still a win. Electricity is far more efficient at converting energy into movement than fossil fuels (roughly 75% vs 15%)
>Electricity is far more efficient at converting energy into movement than fossil fuels (roughly 75% vs 15%)
This metric could also be described as: "what percentage of the total energy content of your car's fuel tank will be converted into kinetic energy?"
What is the point of this metric?
Solar panels are less efficent at converting incident sunlight into electricity, than fossil-fueled power stations are at converting hydrocarbons into electricity. The same applies for wind turbines converting kinetic energy into electricity.
Blindly taking the "efficiency" of one tiny step in the process of converting an energy source into automotive propulsion will lead to some absurd conclusions.