Battery powered cars a tough sell.

Its strange how politics makes good numbers look bad.

When the push for plug-ins came about it was before the automotive collapse, but with a clear danger of oil price increases. It was passed under bush in a bipartisan manner as a way to establish technology to get off oil use. It was part of a package that also provided funding for cellunistic ethanol and biodiesel. No picking of winners, federal money for all the best candidates to lower oil use. The auto market was collapsing At that time it was for 250,000 cars.

Come a switch of presidents, and bankrupt GM and and Chyrsler and the bailout. Some of the same commentators like O'Reily that were for it under bush are now calling it a massive waste. Why? Two reasons. O'bama politicized GM and said it was about saving jobs, and the DOE gave way too optimistic projections for adoption. Anything the president is for it seems the opposition needs to be against, and with these overly optimistic numbers they can slam a success as a failure. I'm sure if O'bama was for apple pie some republican would say its unhealthy or wimpy or something else. Democrats blamed bush for the oil price spikes and some republicans defended him. Some of those same republicans blame obama, and some of the ones that blamed bush say its not obama's fault. There also isn't much need to raise the subsidy either. Let's give it time.

Plug in vehicles are the same good idea they were before. They also are in their infancy. Let's not let these politically motivated anti-plug in politics color what is really going on. Subsidies are small compared to oil subsidies. The market is growing and new entrants are being added. They won't take off in huge numbers until the second generation of this technology. Yes I understand the first gen was really over 100 years ago, but I mean the next generaion of prius phv, Leaf, volt, etc. The second generation of tesla the S comes out this year.

 

I'd buy an electric-only car if I could get into it & drive up to 3-400 miles, year-round, without recharging. If it must need a recharge, it better do it in less than 20 minutes.

Until then, the hybrid is the only practical solution, because people are not going to change their driving styles. And few people can afford to buy a $30K+ EV just for their daily commute and another vehicle for future trips to Disneyland or Grandma's house for Christmas.

 

The Tesla S comes close to that with its 85kwh pack and quick charger. It is also much more expensive than the average car. This is why phevs make a lot of sense. One problem with that article is it did not talk about the range of phevs and quick fill ups. These are also too expensive right now for mass adoption, but in 2016 with battery advances they may just take off. A PHEV with 35 mile AER seems to use less than half the gas of a prius, if gas goes to $10 wouldn't it be nice if the technology matured? What if toyota made that PHEV and it used 6 gallons per 1000 miles instead of 20?

Right now the "practicle" solution is an ICE because people don't want to pay a "hybrid" premium, or so these articles would tell you. Spending an extra $2500-$10,000 doesn't make sense - at least according to edmunds. I find these arguments dead wrong. We did pay more for our hybrids and are part of the solution of lower oil usage. Damn this payback argument. Plug ins are not for many right now, just initial adopters, but they make sense today as do hybrids like the prius and TCH, FFH, HSH, etc.

 

They are just too expensive at the moment. Only people who love the tech are buying them, as there's no economically defensible position for one's purchase.

I don't think the pay back argument is wrong. Maybe $2500 isn't so big a premium, what about $5k, what about $10k, 20k, 30k? At some point you have to admit that the price premium is too severe. And even the premium doesn't tell the whole story. I can buy a Leaf for $28k after tax credit, which is $10k more than a gas counterpart and it still is effectively a less usable vehicle with its range limitations.

 

Well, as I argued before, the tough sell is not just the price, but simply the fact that without a mature charging structure, the feeling of isolation due to range is because there is a lack of a mature infrastructure to make it seem worthwhile.

I don't see the 'fast' charging being practical yet, just the simple 'charging' in general because the methods to 'supercharge' or 'fast charge' will still continue to evolve and the means to do so. What we lack, also, is the ability to store a large capacity of power or a means to 'modularlize' power capacity to replace the power we have been so use to from a Gas based system.

I would liken this closer to a Japanese Anime, a rehash of an old series called 'Giant Robo'. They had a Recyclable Energy Source called 'Shizuma Drive'. A power system that could be 'exchanged out' modularly. If we had something 'similar', a standardized 'power magazine' or 'battery' system, then you might see a battery system seem a little easier to work with.

 

They're a hard sell over here when electricity costs the same as most of the USA but petrol costs over $9 a US gallon. If the sums don't add up for us, then they won't add up for you.

I think when the second phase of EV's due next year should be significantly cheaper and therefore, more likely to sell. Apparantly the UK built Leaf due next year is to be a third cheaper than the existing model.

 

Like this?

Battery Switch Stations | Better Place

China

 

Isn't that exactly the problem that a PHEV solves? It substitutes electric miles for gasoline miles, but does not require a complex public infrastrutre just chargers at home and/or work.

This is what a better place is all about, my prediction is it will be a failure. Many more people than own hybrids right now have second cars that allow them to go BEV today. For others a phev solves the problem. It is a matter of price and choice of car only today. This limits it to initial adopters. There is no big technology hurdle, all it will take is evolutionary battery improvements and higher gas prices. That is why the market will stay small the next few years. The incentives and cafe standards will get us to gen II cars that may actually sell well.

 

Yet it's funny - that many will buy the $30K+ Silverado or F-150 and yet they'll seldome (if ever) end up putting a single scratch on the hitch ball or bed liner - due to lack of use. As far as, "until then" ... there are other "until then" exceptions besides 300 mile EV range ... or 20 minute charge times. For example, let gas prices hit levels like in Europe & Asia, and just watch how fast folks begin to rethink things.

Sadly, both political parties refuse to stop oil subsidies because it'd be interpreted as a failure of the party that has the character to do that. Sadly, there are still just too many ignorant people in the U.S. that think the 'solution' is to get gas back down to $1 a gallon (as if that'll ever be possible) ... having no clue to the possibility of the end of cheep fuel as being a reality .... and their heads will dive into the sand if the subject is even brought up.

.

 

A PHEV solves this, only to a degree. The problem is, you are still relying on gas to undo the tether. The thing is, I don't consider it an Electric car, it is still a hybrid that will use gas.

Also, Austin, you assume people are going to be a 'two or more' car owner. The problem is, that not everyone can field more than one car. Some will have to lean to having one car cause of maintenance, insurance and other factors (such as parking or general stresses).

You are also ignoring my original pointing out that again, the tethering issue. Without the infrastructure, people who are forced to commute distances, where their roundtrip range dictates this. Please remember, the hard sell is going to be on the electric cars in general. Volt and the Plugin Prius are also going to be hard sells not simply on the price, but the 'gains' that you are suppose to get. Your MPG 'gains' is from the electric miles, but when you go past the electric range or push the vehicle past its EV mode like for the Prius Plugin... Your expected mpg drops over time because you went past the 'point of no return' to keep the ideal expected mpg.

As I argued before, the range extension idea should be more of a 'security' blanket for those cars. And even with alt fuel sources, the range extension should be relied on less than the battery charge.

 

If there were 2 options for fueling an electric car, such as plug-in regharge or battery swap at a station, then we might be onto something here...

If every Nissan dealer had such a "fuel" station, offering quick charges and quick battery swaps, then more people might be interested. If more EV's were on the road, then more independent fuel stations would eventually offer the same services.

The big snag would be the battery life and how to adjust the price of a charged battery vs. its remaining cycles. I suppose you could "rent" the battery and the manufacturer would always guarantee it had some useful life.

Ford should be doing something like this, since it has probably the widest dealer network in the U.S.. Nissan just isn't that common in many areas.

 

Not at all. The article was about plug ins that includes both PHEVs and BEVs.

Now do a thought experiment for me. Say a user has a BEV and HV. He uses the BEV when mileage is in distance and HV when it is not. Well that is exactly like having a PHEV. The question is size of the electric range and cost. We don't need to be religious like some try to be.

Less than 1% of vehicles in america are hybrids, while over 20% of americans could be served by a BEV. I don't think BEVs are that limiting. The big hold ups are price and choice of vehicle, not that no one has driving patterns that could be served by plug ins. BEVs definitely are not for everyone.

But it seems that most people commute less than the volts range. There is nothing that says a phev can't have a 100 mile range either, and that covers just about every bodies daily drive.

All I am saying is now is the time for initial adopters. This is a necessary period to get he cars developed and costs down. I despise the hard sell or the idea that 0.1% is a failure but 0.3% would have been a success. Success will be measured in 2016 not 2011. This failure or hard sale is all about the hypesters and bashers and has little to do with the merrits of the technology.

The stats on the volt have it getting about 110mpg, which saves a lot of gas. It substitutes american electricity. Stats on the prius phv are not in yet. If 20% of the drivers started getting over 100 mpg that would reduce a great deal of oil use.

Why isn't it a solution? Isn't there a point where that is all we need, a flex fuel range extender? Maybe you don't think 100 mpg is enough, you can increase the battery size. I don't get the religious arguments against range extension. If you added a range extender to a leaf or tesla would the driver get fewer electric miles?

 

Look at how many americans bought homes they could not afford Many americans like expensive things too. Its about perceived value and values. There are some that have such corrupt values that they think buying opec oil is no problem, but putting a little more CO2 in the air is a crime.

Alternative energy won't get cheaper, but plug in cars should while gasoline will get more expensive.

 

The reason I say range extenders should not be the 'end all' is that people would abuse such things. The Range Extension should be less about how far you can push the car, but a backup for the unintended, but necessary side trips or mistakes.

Also, Austin, you ignored the point I made before. Not everyone can afford to get two cars. While you say 20% people use daily commuting range, it ignores again, that there are times a person will have to drive farther than their normal commuting range. So you are telling me, one person has to BUY TWO CARS in order to do the job of what they want, one for commuting and one for things that go beyond the commuting range.

There is an inherent flaw in the logic in the situation you are outlining with people who would be in a situation of being able to float one car and asking them to do two. This is WHY people don't do the 'eco-smart' option or buy the expensive battery car that would fit some or most of their needs because of the other side of their needs will come up and make the decision to spend money for 'less' seem 'attractive'. The Volt and the Leaf suffer that with the costs. When I look at the Volt, I feel I am getting less, even with the tax rebate incentives than I get with my Prius v 5 with ATP. While it is 'fun' for some of those owners, to me the car isn't worth it compared to the Prius v and it uses more gas than the Volt. Even with the range extension, I just don't feel comfortable about getting it. The Leaf I know I can't get into part of its design but also just the range issue with the concern of the infrastructure.

While the Volt's range extension overrides the range issue, I feel, in the long run, the design of the car does not strengthen my resolve. The Plugin Prius is still a 'Prius', even with the higher EV mode range, I just don't feel the 'benefit' of it until we take advantage more of having places to recharge the battery and lessen the need to fuel up in other ways.

It will still be a hard sell just because I am still going to rely on something other than a 'primary' source, and in all honesty, the range extension itself where I am lugging several gallons of gas to provide range extension versus a couple of gallons to help will still give that impression. And it is basically saying, "I'm still 'gassing' up the car."

 

Whether EVs are a "tough sell" or a "no brainer" depends a lot on the religion of the person in the left hand seat, or right hand if you live where folks drive on the wrong side of the road.
Grumpy's assertion that if they don't work in the EU, where gas is $9 a gallon has some merit, but many more people here in the US live in single family detached dwellings, which facilitate charging. However (comma!) many more people here in the US commute stupidly long distances from their single family detached dwellings, which is where the 'range anxiety' comes in. That's just two sides of one argument, in a debate that has many facets.
Just because something works in the EU, doesn't necessarily mean that it will work here, and vice versa. Different population densities. Waaaaaaaay different culture.
Examples abound, and those fuel yet another arguments.

Like I said....depending on your church, EV's are crazy stupid or they're the shining path foreword.
The "truth"??????
Probably in the middle somewhere, where it usually is. And it's different for the individual.
I've been reading (with interest) more than one story of how the lustier has worn off of hybrids, and how the math is favoring the good old Mk-1, Mod-0 ICE car for TCO.
No. I didn't say that I believed the stories. Put the club down, please.

NOW...we have the EV debate.
Well....for me, it's not a debate. Current tax laws favor folks that are wealthier than I am where EV/PHEV ownership is concerned. I'm simply not going to go into debt for a $40,000 car to "save money", and I'm not yet in a position to fork out $40,000 in cash for one. I'm just not that much into the driving thing.
I'm nine point something miles from work, and I can charge at work and at home and EV's still don't work for me.
But.....that's me.
There are people out there for which EVs are a no-brainer as well.....and I'm happy...for them.

IMHO....EVs may evolve into a more viable alternative form of transportation in the next few decades, but they're not going to replace the ICE anytime soon....at least for the majority of folks that live outside very dense population areas. Like I said......MHO.
Could be right......could be wrong....but for me EV's aren't a "tough sell", they're a "No Sale."

YMMV.

 

IIRC that was the conspiracy theory before about the volt, but the data suggests volt drivers are doing about 70% of their miles electric. Now all of a sudden this may change, but I don't see any reason it should. Many EREV drivers only use the gas engine on a few long trips a year. We even have data from thousands of leaf drivers that never go beyond the AER of the volt. Certainly someone with an EREV can decide to not plug in, but someone with a standard ICE car can not plug in. If gas shortages happen, do you think that phev driver is going to cut back on plugging into the wall. There is also no reason the volt AER or 35 miles EPA in the maximum range of future PHEVs.

Not at all if someone wants one car that does not need a public charging infrastructure but can substitute electric miles for gasoline in a phev. Some don't want an engine and want a BEV.. Both choices are supported by current policies. I think you just disagree with me on the viability of phevs, but I hope you understand a phev overcomes your objection. IMHO they are a better near term solution. This stems from my opinion that we will run out of gasoline slowly not quickly. Flex fuel phevs should be viable for a long time, the problem today is price and choice.

 

When you want/need to carry more stuff than will fit in your own car/SUV/van you rent a truck. When you need/want to go on a long trip (longer than your EV's range) rent a conventional car.

People do this all the time now. When they go on trips that are longer than their car's range what's the 2nd thing they do? Pick up the rental car at the airport.

The concept of calculating a hybrid's or EV's payback as a reason for buying the car is, IMO, pure crap because it isn't done for anything else. What's the payback on the Hemi engine? What's the payback on a Corvette? What's the payback on the fake leather seats? What's the payback on the turbo? What's the payback on the V-6 option? What's the payback on a BMW over a Malibu?