News
U.S. EV adoption is happening faster than anticipated
EV adoption in the U.S. happening much faster than anticipated, according to an observation of research by Recurrent Auto which is focused on providing transparency and confidence in pre-owned EV transactions. The research directly contradicts and challenges a statement by Jack Hollis, the executive vice president of sales at Toyota Motor North America.
According to Hollis, consumer demand isn’t sufficient enough for the mass adoption of battery electric vehicles to develop as fast as everyone would like. He added that battery electric vehicles cost too much and that the infrastructure isn’t ready for recharging the batteries away from home.
“I don’t think the market is ready. I don’t think the infrastructure is ready. And even if you were ready to purchase one, and if you could afford it … they’re still too high,” Hollis said.
Recurrent Auto: EV adoption is happening faster than expected
In an interview with Teslarati, Recurrent CEO, Scott Case shared an observation of a study by Boston Consulting Group (BCG) which has released a market projection for EV adoption annually since 2018.
Scott told me that Recurrent noticed that BCG repeated the same analysis four times since 2018 and has gotten it wrong each time.
“What we’ve seen every time they’ve done this is that they’ve just missed their forecast and gotten too low every single time.”
He said what was really interesting was that they were seeing BCG’s forecast and noticed that despite having all of the data and models, they’ve been “systematically under forecasting how fast the EV adoption is going to happen.”
The graph above shows how the EV sales projection for 2030 by BCG changed each time it released a report. According to BCG, EV sales projections in the U.S. for 2030 continued to grow to:
- 21% in the 2018 report
- 26% in the 2020 report
- 42% in the 2021 report
- 53% in the 2022 report
What Scott and the team at Recurrent found strange was that in the course of four years, the U.S. EV sales projections for 2030 more than doubled growing from an estimated 21% to 53%.
Scott pointed out that BCG isn’t the only company that has consistently missed how quickly the auto market is transitioning.
“The market adoption is just happening faster than any moment in the past. This is not about when we get to complete it, or what the numbers have been already. It’s what the best industry experts are forecasting about how fast this is going to happen.”
“We still have eight years between now and 2030. How many more times is this going to get forecasted? Eventually, they will get it right because we’ll be in 2030 and we’ll know exactly how many cars were sold that are EVs versus combustion engines. But there’s clearly only one direction that this adoption forecast is going.”
3 Major Factors
Scott went over the three major factors BCG uses in its model.
“First, it’s what are the projections for battery prices? This is a huge component of the cost of EVs. Second, is what the vehicle selection looks like and how many automakers are adopting different models. And the third is government policy changes. When you think about those three factors and over the course of the 2018-2022 models, you can sort of understand what’s been changing.”
Scott added that there was a 97% cost reduction in lithium-ion battery prices over the past three decades up to 2018.
“Since 2018, the decrease in cost flattened out, and even over the last year, it increased somewhat because of the supply chain difficulties and global issues. That’s not what was going on in this model. It’s not the battery price changes that are causing this forecast.”
“I think what you’re seeing over the course of this four-year period is the second factor. It’s vehicle selection and it translates into how many automakers are adopting and adding vehicles to their fleet. That’s a function of how automakers understand what consumers want to buy. I would say that this is a true reflection of market demand and not any government policy whether it’s a ban or a tax credit.”
Scott pointed out that next year, the Tesla Model Y will be the global best-selling vehicle without any help from any tax credit.
“You know what car it’s knocking off? It’s the Toyota Camry.”
One thing that BCG’s 2022 forecast did not include was the impacts of the Inflation Reduction Act which was signed just last month. Another thing not reflected in the 2022 forecast was California’s proposed ban on the sale of gasoline vehicles in 2034.
“California just passed the total ban on new ICE sales in 2035. Washington State where I live has–it’s nonbinding but it’s a 2030 cut-off. I’m not sure either of those is actually going to be needed because I think that the market going to take care of the transition well before those sales projections happen.”
“The most recent run of the BCG estimate was in the spring. They ran the model in the spring and published it in June. At that point, the Inflation Reduction Act was dead. Everyone thought the EV tax credit was dead and done. That doesn’t even reflect the impact of that. I would expect the next time that this model gets to run in 2023, you’ve got the impact of the EV tax credit which is a ten-year run, and the California gas car ban for 2035.”
He also said the bans will probably not be needed due to how fast the market is transitioning to EVs before they take effect. The forecast will most likely be even higher once they account for tax credits and the changing government policies.
“There’s room to grow here.”
Note: Johnna is a Tesla shareholder and supports its mission.
Your feedback is important. If you have any comments, concerns, or see a typo, you can email me at johnna@teslarati.com. You can also reach me on Twitter @JohnnaCrider1
Elon Musk
The Starship moon landing number NASA and Elon Musk can’t agree on
Musk disputes NASA estimate of 22 Starship launches for Moon landing, predicting 6 to 8.
Elon Musk is disputing a new NASA safety panel estimate of how many Starship launches it will take to put astronauts on the Moon, saying the real number will be less than half the panel’s figure.
On Thursday, NASA’s Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel held its quarterly public meeting. Panel member Charlie Precourt, a former NASA astronaut, flagged the fueling process for SpaceX’s lunar lander as a major risk for Artemis IV, the mission planned to land a crew on the Moon in 2028. “We need to keep our eyes on numerous required fuelings for the lander,” Precourt said, according to Ars Technica. “I think the last estimate is around 22 flights.”
Ars Technica’s Eric Berger posted the comment on X, and Musk replied. “That’s way too high,” Musk wrote. “Actual number will be more like 6 to 8.”
The disagreement comes down to a basic problem with sending a ship as large as Starship to the Moon. Starship burns nearly all of its propellant just reaching Earth orbit, so it cannot continue on to the Moon without stopping for a refill. SpaceX’s answer is a gas station in space. First, a Starship that works as a storage tank, called a depot, is launched into orbit. Then a series of tanker Starships launch one at a time, dock with the depot and pump their leftover propellant into it. Once the depot is full, the lunar lander version of Starship launches, docks, fills up and heads for the Moon.
Every tanker trip is its own full rocket launch, which is why the count matters. More launches mean more time, more cost and more chances for something to go wrong before astronauts ever leave Earth. Berger estimated that even if SpaceX reaches twice weekly Starship launches by the end of 2027, filling a depot at the panel’s number would still take roughly three months.
How many tankers are needed depends mostly on how much propellant each one can carry to orbit and how much is lost along the way. Starship’s fuel and oxygen are stored at extremely cold temperatures, and some of it slowly boils off while waiting in orbit. More is lost in each transfer. NASA appears to be working from what Starship can lift today, while Musk’s range assumes a more capable rocket.
Musk has pushed back on higher counts before. In 2021, after a government document suggested 16 launches, he called that “extremely unlikely” and said eight tankers would be the most required.
Much of the answer depends on hardware SpaceX has not finished flying. As Teslarati noted earlier this year, the company plans to carry out the refueling process with its upgraded V3 Starship, and Precourt described Artemis IV as carrying “a large number of firsts.” He also praised NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman’s team for working to clear obstacles for both SpaceX and Blue Origin, whose Blue Moon lander does not rely on orbital refueling for its first mission.
Elon Musk
Tesla’s secretive “Project Crystal Sun” gets a big green light in Texas
Fort Bend County approved four incentive agreements Thursday for Tesla’s proposed $10.1 billion solar factory.
Fort Bend County commissioners on Thursday approved a package of tax incentives for Tesla’s proposed $10.1 billion solar cell factory near Needville, Texas, giving the company one of the last local approvals it needs before it decides where to build. All four Tesla agreements passed 4 to 0.
The votes covered a property tax abatement inside Reinvestment Zone No. 34, a Chapter 381 economic development agreement, a foreign trade zone non-objection paired with payments in lieu of certain taxes, and a separate payment in lieu of taxes “true up” agreement, according to agenda notes from the Fort Bend Commissioners Court meeting.
The project, known internally as “Project Crystal Sun,” would make solar cells and finished modules on roughly 3,000 acres near FM 762 and FM 1994, south of the Brazos River. As Teslarati reported when the filing first surfaced in August, Tesla’s application under the state’s JETI Act splits the investment into $1.5 billion in real property and $8.6 billion in equipment, with 9,712 permanent jobs projected by 2033 and commercial operations targeted for the first quarter of 2029. The plant would handle the full chain from ingot and wafer production through cell testing.
Inside Tesla’s secretive $10 Billion “Project Crystal Sun” filing
Thursday’s approval does not lock in the site. Tesla has told the Texas Comptroller it is still weighing other locations, and site selection adviser David Dennison told Lamar Consolidated ISD trustees in September that the race had narrowed to Fort Bend and one out of state rival with a “very compelling package,” according to the Houston Chronicle. Tesla hopes to decide before the end of 2026, and the incentives still need sign off from the Comptroller and the Governor’s office.
Local officials have now done nearly everything within their control. Commissioners created the reinvestment zone in an August 24 special meeting, with Interim County Judge Daniel Wong formally withdrawing himself over his engineering firm’s past work with Tesla. Lamar CISD trustees voted 7 to 0 on September 15 to advance a JETI agreement that would tax Tesla’s qualifying property at 50 percent of its value for maintenance and operations from 2029 through 2038.
The plant lines up with a target Elon Musk set on Tesla’s Q4 2025 earnings call in January, when he said the company would “work toward getting 100 GW a year of solar cell production, integrating across the entire supply chain from raw materials all the way to finished solar panels.” In March, Tesla was reported to be negotiating a $2.9 billion purchase of Chinese solar manufacturing equipment bound for Texas. The Houston area already hosts Tesla’s Megafactory in Brookshire, where Megapack 3 production has started. Tesla said on its Q3 call that Megapack supply for 2027 is nearly sold out, and Musk wrote on X Thursday that the company is “increasing production of Megapacks as much as possible,” as demand from data centers climbs.
Tesla revealed plans to develop its own maps internally to fix Navigation issues and give owners more control over their routing.
On the company’s Q3 2026 Earnings Call, a question was asked about FSD Navigation issues, particularly speed limit recognition, parking, and routing. These are issues that surface from version to version and seem to be seriously challenging for Tesla’s AI team to resolve.
Tesla’s Head of AI, Ashok Elluswamy, said in response to the question:
“You’re totally right that we shouldn’t be depending on external people’s maps. So we are building our own maps, but not like the same way as OneMoreMap. We are building an entirely new architecture with essentially AI-based mapping and navigation.”
He continued:
“It’s going to be super awesome. It’s going to be integrated with voice. You can talk to it, ask for different routes. It’s going to learn your personalized preferences, plus the fleet preferences. The collective intelligence of all the cars is going to flow into making the maps and navigation super cool.”
Elluswamy said this issue should be confronted, and the mapping should be available for people by the time the v15 release starts deploying to customers.
“And over the next several months,” he added, “it’s just going to take over all of the navigation functions, parking, destination handling. And it will know you better than you know yourself in some regard for the driving task, and then handle it fully.”
Tesla Summon got insanely good in FSD v14.3.2 — Navigation? Not so much
Navigation is perhaps the most notable complaint with FSD, and although it has gotten better, it is still flawed. Much of the time, FSD will take people on routes that are not preferred by the driver, but Tesla tried to combat this with a routing feature in the Summer 2026 Update.
Tesla currently relies on Google for map data, but it is sort of counterintuitive to believe the company would rely on a third party for this. These improvements will be welcome, as routing and navigation have been such a pain point for so many owners for so long.
Quotes via Motley Fool
The Starship moon landing number NASA and Elon Musk can’t agree on
Tesla’s secretive “Project Crystal Sun” gets a big green light in Texas
