Do electric vehicles do well in hot weather? How high temps could affect your EV and how to ensure better performance
Will high summer temperatures affect how electric vehicle owners drive?
Summer has just begun and it's already shaping up to be a scorcher. Several states are reaching record high temperatures.
There were over four million electric vehicles on American roads in 2024, with EVs accounting for 1.4% of all vehicles, according to Experian Automotive. Some companies like General Motors are selling more electric vehicles than ever before. So, are millions of American electric vehicle owners going to have issues charging and driving their EVs this summer?
How does extreme heat affect electric vehicle performance?
Most major automakers including Ford, General Motors, Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Volkswagen, and more have rolled out electric vehicle nameplates. Though the United States' EV adoption process may be sluggish compared to other countries, electric vehicles have become ubiquitous in some of the largest cities in America like Los Angeles and San Francisco.
One of the greatest challenges that electric vehicle owners face is performance issues related to extreme temperatures. Most popular electric vehicles transfer power to wheels using lithium-ion batteries and electric motors. These batteries are extremely sensitive to very high and low temperatures.
High temperatures can cause a loss of driving range, battery degradation, and slower charging times, according to Car and Driver. Ultimately, driving an electric vehicle in extreme heat is taxing on the vehicle's battery. Additionally the constant operation of an EV's air conditioning system can further deplete driving range.
Drivers who only plan on traveling for short distances in extreme temperatures may not need to be concerned. On the other hand, drivers relying on an EV's full driving range in optimal conditions may encounter frustrating performance issues.
How car brands are working to combat electric vehicle performance issues
Many automakers have developed thermal management systems for modern electric vehicles. These systems use liquid or air cooling methods to cool lithium-ion batteries. If these thermal management systems are ineffective an electric vehicle could be rendered immobile (or worse) due to the battery overheating.
Some electric vehicles have even caught on fire while charging due to overheating lithium-ion batteries. These events aren't exclusive to summer or extreme temperatures, but heat can exacerbate battery issues for EVs prone to overheating. Luckily for American drivers, while weather-related performance issues are tedious, there are plenty of measures owners can take to avoid major issues.
Ways to prevent electric vehicle performance issues in extreme heat
There's no surefire way to prevent an electric vehicle from overheating in extreme temperatures, but there are steps drivers can take to keep their EVs cooler and ensure better performance.
Owning an electric vehicle in extreme heat isn't always convenient. That said, there are workarounds that drivers can resort to if battery depletion or overheating is a concern.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
When Should You Buy Ford Motor Company (NYSE:F)?
Ford Motor Company (NYSE:F) led the NYSE gainers with a relatively large price hike in the past couple of weeks. The recent rally in share prices has nudged the company in the right direction, though it still falls short of its yearly peak. With many analysts covering the large-cap stock, we may expect any price-sensitive announcements have already been factored into the stock's share price. However, what if the stock is still a bargain? Let's take a look at Ford Motor's outlook and value based on the most recent financial data to see if the opportunity still exists. Trump has pledged to "unleash" American oil and gas and these 15 US stocks have developments that are poised to benefit. Good news, investors! Ford Motor is still a bargain right now. Our valuation model shows that the intrinsic value for the stock is $13.76, which is above what the market is valuing the company at the moment. This indicates a potential opportunity to buy low. However, given that Ford Motor's share is fairly volatile (i.e. its price movements are magnified relative to the rest of the market) this could mean the price can sink lower, giving us another chance to buy in the future. This is based on its high beta, which is a good indicator for share price volatility. Check out our latest analysis for Ford Motor Future outlook is an important aspect when you're looking at buying a stock, especially if you are an investor looking for growth in your portfolio. Buying a great company with a robust outlook at a cheap price is always a good investment, so let's also take a look at the company's future expectations. Ford Motor's earnings growth are expected to be in the teens in the upcoming years, indicating a solid future ahead. This should lead to robust cash flows, feeding into a higher share value. Are you a shareholder? Since F is currently undervalued, it may be a great time to accumulate more of your holdings in the stock. With a positive outlook on the horizon, it seems like this growth has not yet been fully factored into the share price. However, there are also other factors such as capital structure to consider, which could explain the current undervaluation. Are you a potential investor? If you've been keeping an eye on F for a while, now might be the time to enter the stock. Its buoyant future outlook isn't fully reflected in the current share price yet, which means it's not too late to buy F. But before you make any investment decisions, consider other factors such as the strength of its balance sheet, in order to make a well-informed investment decision. If you want to dive deeper into Ford Motor, you'd also look into what risks it is currently facing. When we did our research, we found 2 warning signs for Ford Motor (1 is concerning!) that we believe deserve your full attention. If you are no longer interested in Ford Motor, you can use our free platform to see our list of over 50 other stocks with a high growth potential. Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned.
CNBC
2 hours ago
- CNBC
How China could shut down auto factories around the world
China's dominance of the global supply chain is starting to hurt automakers. On April 4, the country cut off exports of a class of minerals called "heavy rare earth elements," and it sent the global auto industry into a panic. Rare earths are a class of 17 elements that have become indispensable in all kinds of applications — everything from fighter jets and submarines, to smartphones and appliances. You can even find them in sports equipment, like tennis rackets and baseball bats. They are also, of course, essential to the modern automobile. Gas burning cars use them to filter pollution through the vehicle's catalytic converter. Electric vehicles use them in motors and batteries. "Rare earths are really critical, and not just for electric vehicles," said Gracelin Baskaran, director of the Critical Minerals Security Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "They are in your seat belt, your steering wheels, various parts of your electrical components. You are not going to manufacture a car without rare earths." Rare earths are split into further categories, based on their atomic weight. Light rare earths are easier to source. It's the medium and heavy ones that China has totally monopolized. China controls about 70% of the world's rare earth mines. But where it really dominates is in processing. The name "rare earth elements" is a bit misleading — the elements themselves are not that rare in nature. What makes them "rare" is the complex and difficult process of separating them from the rock they are embedded in, and from each other. China controls about 90% of the world's rare earth processing, and has a total monopoly on the processing of heavy rare earths. Since at least 2023, China has been tightening its grip on several of the key critical minerals it provides for the world, Baskaran said. Still, the April 4 export restrictions shocked the automotive world. "It came out of nowhere," said Dan Hearsch, managing director at AlixPartners. "Nobody had any time to react to it. I mean, within a matter of weeks, all of the material in the pipeline was out." European automakers shut down factories. Ford had to idle production of its popular Explorer SUV. This month, China started permitting some access to companies that supply parts to some automakers. And this week the Trump administration said it had reached a deal to expedite rare earth and magnet shipments to the U.S. Still it is unclear how durable these deals will be. "We're not out of the woods yet," Baskaran said. "There is a lot of volatility in the U.S.-China relationship in between tariffs and mineral restrictions. We've seen China ramp up restrictions over two years. Rare earths are just the newest one." There are longer-term solutions if China cuts off access again: recycling, developing other sources and innovation, for example. This crisis may even spur the industry to take action that reduces dependence on China. But this rare earths crisis is just the latest in a series of supply disruptions over the last several years. Hearsch said it will likely get worse. "Today it's rare earths," Hearsch said. "But tomorrow it can and will be something else that maybe we're not thinking about, that maybe isn't even all that valuable and suddenly will be." Watch the video to learn more
Atlantic
2 hours ago
- Atlantic
A Reboot for Capitalism's Operating System
The world economy is like a supercomputer that churns through trillions of calculations of prices and quantities, and spits out information on incomes, wealth, profits, and jobs. This is effectively how capitalism works—as a highly efficient information-processing system. To do that job, like any computer, capitalism runs on both hardware and software. The hardware is the markets, institutions, and regulatory regimes that make up the economy. The software is the governing economic ideas of the day—in essence, what society has decided the economy is for. Most of the time, the computer works quite well. But now and then, it crashes. Usually when that happens, the world economy just needs a software update—new ideas to address new problems. But sometimes it needs a major hardware modification as well. We are in one of those Control-Alt-Delete moments. Against the background of tariff wars, market angst about U.S. debt, tumbling consumer confidence, and a weakening dollar watched over by a heedless administration, globalization's American-led era of free trade and open societies is coming to a close. The global economy is getting a hardware refit and trying out a new operating system—in effect, a full reboot, the likes of which we have not seen in nearly a century. To understand why this is happening and what it means, we need to abandon any illusion that the worldwide turn toward right-wing populism and economic nationalism is merely a temporary error, and that everything will eventually snap back to the relatively benign world of the late 1990s and early 2000s. The computer's architecture is changing, but how this next version of capitalism will work depends a great deal on the software we choose to run on it. The governing ideas about the economy are in flux: We have to decide what the new economic order looks like and whose interests it will serve. The last such force-quit, hard-restart period was in the 1930s. In the United States, the huge liquidity crunch caused by the 1929 Wall Street crash combined with the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930 to kill commercial activity and trigger the Great Depression. Bank failures swiftly turned into a mass failure of firms and industries; wages tumbled and unemployment shot up, in some areas to a quarter of the workforce. Despite the state interventions of Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal program, the economic situation stabilized and returned to sustained growth only in the '40s, when wartime re-armament delivered a huge industrial stimulus. The computer built for the postwar period was solving to avoid a repeat of the '30s. The software update was a new governing idea of full employment. Achieving that aim as the central raison d'être of the economy also entailed several hardware modifications. One was a policy of forcing wealth owners to use their capital locally by limiting their ability to move it out of the country. To maintain their profits, they were obliged to invest in technology that would increase productivity. In this virtuous cycle, high productivity allowed for high wages, which the state could then tax to fund social transfers. Combined with the government-spending power of revenues raised by high marginal taxes, America's welfare state was born. Labor unions were seen more as partners in business enterprises, and political parties needed to appeal to the median, middle-income voter. These changes produced a political system in which the two main parties competed over a centrist consensus so bipartisan that people struggled to see the difference between Democrats and Republicans. The New Deal did indeed avoid a repeat of the '30s, but its software had a bug. If full employment meant running the economy hot to keep unemployment down, then eventually employers' ability to keep their profits up by augmenting productivity would fail as workers' demand for higher wages outstripped firms' ability to pay them. By the mid-'70s, profits were falling as wages and inflation rose, so the U.S. investor class reached for the reboot switch. Holders of capital founded political-action committees, funded think tanks and media outlets to promote free enterprise, and helped get Ronald Reagan elected in 1980. Reagan busted unions and deregulated markets, accelerating the movement of capital from union strongholds to 'right to work' states, which was effectively an onshore tryout of offshoring. Simultaneously, the Federal Reserve under Paul Volcker raised interest rates to almost 20 percent to squeeze inflation, a measure that induced a harsh recession, which disciplined labor further by raising unemployment. As all of that implies, full employment ceased to be the governing economic idea. The software rewrite of this era instead made price stability, capital mobility, and the restoration of profits via globalization the new priorities. The hardware modification was to make central banks more independent—the better to enforce price stability and enable the recovery of profits. These new priorities were justified by Margaret Thatcher's famous nostrum that 'there is no alternative.' This reboot has come to be known as neoliberalism. The computer was humming along again when I arrived from Scotland to attend graduate school in New York in the summer of 1992. The U.S. had entered a period that Ben Bernanke, then a Federal Reserve governor (and later Fed chair), called the 'Great Moderation.' Globalization was good; finance was the future. Central banks had delivered sustainable prosperity, and the investor class saw its profits restored on a transnational scale. Once again, however, the system had a bug. The increase in profitability came not only as a result of improved domestic productivity but also at the expense of once-stable industrial regions of the U.S., as jobs, skills, and capital flowed out. Meanwhile, the authorities had presided over the deregulation of financial markets, which supplied the economy with copious credit. But one effect of this credit was to mask a chronic lack of wage growth and a rising level of inequality. That turned out to be a major hardware issue: Neoliberalism's financialized solutions to economic problems became liabilities when the next crash came, in 2008, as a tsunami of credit became an earthquake of debt. The hardware modification of the era—independent central banks—saved the system with colossal bailouts of the private sector, paid for by the public sector in the form of ever greater debt and more stringent fiscal policies. This liquidity dump enabled the economy to stagger on through the slowest-ever recovery from a recession—but only by pushing the bulk of the costs of those bailouts onto those least able to bear them. Signs of profound public disaffection in Western countries started to show in 2016: first with the Brexit vote in the United Kingdom, then with Donald Trump's rise in the U.S. Trump has acted as a catalyst for the next reboot. His hostile takeover of the Republican Party was leveraged by a new, more working-class electoral coalition based on a populist politics of resentment. His antipathy toward China may lack analysis, but by articulating a sense that American workers had lost out in the neoliberal era, it gave voice to authentic grievance. Trump's chaotic first term made only limited progress in forcing another reboot, but his second term seems likely to foreclose on the Biden administration's interim solution of keeping the neoliberal system running with a limited New Deal–like reindustrialization in new sectors such as renewable energy. The Inflation Reduction Act was a significant reinvention of industrial policy, something not seen for decades outside a national-security context, but Trump is abandoning this sort of intervention. Instead, he has chosen tariffs as his singular tool for reshoring industry. To the extent that the Trumpian approach coheres, the economy's new goal is to benefit native workers by restoring carbon-heavy industrial jobs while removing immigrants from the labor pool and encouraging women to have more children and become homemakers. This is not so much the building of a new computer system as the retrofitting of several old ones—a version of what a critic of Thatcherism once called ' regressive modernisation.' The MAGA economic ideal derives from a blend of the 1950s, which saw a huge expansion of manufacturing jobs for men, and the '40s, when women were pushed out of the wartime jobs and back into the home, and immigration was tightly restricted. This boost for the native labor force is in turn yoked to a 19th-century, mercantilist 'spheres of influence' foreign policy. This hodgepodge of historical impulses speaks to the unsettled nature of Trumponomics. No new economic order is discernible, because the governing idea is still contested. The national-conservative movement, which seeks to rebrand the GOP as a workers' party, has one vision, but other forces are also trying to shape this moment. The 'Dark Enlightenment' wing of the tech sector is a player, too. Overinvested in AI and keen to grab government funding that was earmarked for elite research universities, the Silicon Valley billionaires imagine an economy that runs not as a return to hard-hat industry's glorious past but as a posthuman future of automation and space exploration. The problem with such projects is that we cannot go back, any more than we can leap into the future; we can live only in the present. The populist-right reset will fail because tariffs may spur some reindustrialization, but robots will be the main producers, not working-class men on an assembly line. And little suggests that most women will relish the return to hearth and home that is planned for them. The techno-futurist update has nothing to offer the great mass of humanity and would benefit only the tech lords most invested in its realization. So we seem to be stuck, which is why this moment is so perplexing. The system upgrade is pending: The right is offering its regressive modernization as the update. The left has yet to figure out which one of three paths it wants to take. One possibility is to stay put with the gerontocracy of the Democratic Party and wait for Trumpism to implode. That might happen, and the Democrats' current position as the party of the institutionalist status quo makes this the most likely path. But this will be a losing proposition if no reversion to the mean of the pre-MAGA American politics occurs. The effort by Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Bernie Sanders to rally an anti-oligarchy movement advocates for a second option, of left-wing populism. But whether this appeals to young men who have been drawn to Trump, as well as young women who poll as more progressive, and can create a broad-enough coalition remains to be seen. A third approach is the 'abundance' agenda, promoted recently by Ezra Klein and The Atlantic 's Derek Thompson, which proposes a progressive political program based on lower-regulation, pro-growth policies as a spark for renewed economic growth—though critics on the left accuse this approach of failing to confront corporate power. To develop an alternative to the regressive modernization underpinning Trump's reelection, the left must come up with a governing economic idea that can compete. Technocratic fixes of the old system look very unlikely to inspire a broad-enough coalition to defeat the potent, if unstable, electoral alliance that reelected Trump. The most promising avenue—one that could address the needs of millions of Americans who feel shut out of growth and prosperity and alienated from America's governing elite—might be a fusion of AOC/Bernie populism with a more political, less technocratic version of abundance. Regardless of whether such a project can materialize, we have to accept that a transformation is under way. A new economic order is forming—which means that it is not yet fixed and can still be shaped. But time is running out. As jumbled as the regressive modernization is, it could win the day if we do not come up with a different governing idea of what the economy is and whom it is for. And we need enough people in our democracy to agree that this new purpose is the right one. The ideas are there to be found. They just need politicians with the courage to try them.
