Japan EV's run out of juice?

I would think the biggest problem for Japanese EV's is that most Japanese live in high rise or multi-family buildings which makes home charging hard to do. As the article notes, the biggest impediment is finding a charger since the EV only works if you have convenient home charging. Same would be true for people in US in New York for example.

Shame Japan dumped the nukes vs. building new tech safe nukes. Japan's unique history with nucleare power combined with the Fukishima disaster makes Japan situation unique vs. EV's.

So a lot of factors in Japan working against EV's.

 

Japan generates 25% of it elec from nuclear. That number is reducing as it closes nuclear plants for safety reasons. Japan imports coal, natural gas and uranium. Electric in Japan is expensive. EV is not popular in Japan as the Priys Hybrid. Much patent innovation is on energy Generating Fuel Cells. That may render the EV old hat

 

Right, electricity is expensive, so when you combine that with infrastructural issues and a weak economy it's going to be a problem. But, a big factor is that they like hybrids and small cars. The economics and incentive changes radically for a culture that is comfortable with small, relatively efficient cars. Now also throw in nationalism that limits the sales of the Volt.

And then they just had to mention fuel cells, the PEV-skeptics technology of choice (about which they always seem to ignore the technological challenges and history).

 

EV-skeptic John Petersen had predicted this Japan EV issue shortly after the Tsunami disaster, believe I posted his article at the time (because I thought he was correct). The implication is USA is more or less progressing EV/PHEV on its own.

Petersen has not been correct yet though re: USA as EV/PHEV continues relatively strong here (due partially to extremely strong US government support). Opposite of Japan, here in a way, Hybrids are shunned, and EV/PHEV are considered more politically correct by the environmental community and US government. At the same time Hybrids are shunned here by conservatives, who view Hybrid owners as tree huggers. So they are giving us Hybrid taxes to punish us from the right, and we get dirty looks from the eco-community on the left. Stuck in purgatory, hybrids are here.

Some of the best cars on the road today are hybrids, so purgatory is OK by me. But taxes on a Hybrid are so high here in northern Virginia, it just means I cannot rule out going over to the dark side for the next car I purchase. Equally possible I may have to go over to the EV/PHEV side to get the federal tax credits.

 

My brother was in Japan during the tsunami and for awhile afterwards. It really is a country that has shunned nuclear energy. The majority of the electricity used to be nuclear powered. They shut them down one by one when scheduled mandatory maintenance was required. And they were not allowed to turn back on.

They were so low on energy that the strict standards of Japanese dress code was relaxed. My brother told me of business men without coats wearing short sleeve shirts in the heat of summer because they could not turn on the A/C. The whole country has bought into conserving electricity so they do not have another nuclear disaster.

California just closed San Onofre. Too much public opposition to allow that plant to reopen either.

 

San Onofre was leaking radiation into the atmosphere and that closed it down. Gov would not allow it to reopen for safety reasons. Edison decided to close it.

Japan had similar problems.

 

Hybrid has a strong footing in Japan and the USA. However perhaps this article claiming the EV s is not selling well in Japan is true in the USA.

Toyota is only selling a few hundred PIP a month compared to 14,0000 Prius Hybrids. Tesla and Volt maybe selling 2,000-3,000 per month if that.

Perhaps EV like Hybrid just takes a long time to adopt

 

When it comes to car sales, I make sure I understand the economics before ascribing trends to other factors. From the Japanese car buyer, what is the economic incentive? If electricity prices are high enough to make the fuel cost no better than any other fuel, why go EV? The capital cost is higher, the range is less, the accessibility of charging in the city is limited/expensive, and the choices are limited. There is not that much of a mystery here.

 

The answer to that implied question depends entirely upon what standard is used to determine what is "selling well". Compared to 5 years ago, EV's are selling extraordinarily well. Compared to some carmakers super optimistic projections, not so well. (I suspect that some of the over optimistic projections were based on the Prius really taking off despite all the negative press.)

Let me ask this question. Is the Corvette selling well?

 

I think that's it in a nut shell. Hybrids sold in very low numbers for the first few years and were an object of ridicule. They're now pretty much mainstream. EV's will be the same once your average Joe realises they won't burst into flames or need a new battery every 3 years at a cost of $30,000.

 

GM went bankrupt supporting unprofitable projects. Toyota may not be so amiable.

Vette may be the icon car of the boomers, but Volt is on a growth mode albeit the units sold are not supporting the r and d to launch the car.

I'm sure the finance guys have scratched there head and say why are we doing this again. Vision is the answer. That lasts only so long.

 

I would contend GM went bankrupt making poorer cars than the competition. All the plant shutdowns and loss of market share over decades finally made GM very financially brittle. Their projects (e.g. Saturn) were unprofitable for the same reason the whole company was unprofitable. The Volt is more of exception to this rule. It's a great hybrid architecture made by a company whose previous engineering has all centered on how monstrous a SUV can be made. It remains to be seen if the rest of GM can change course.

 

Sounds like a Story stock.

Year sure but at the end of the day no matter what the technology is the question remains. Are we profitable? How much more time you need? What is the ROI?

Many of those questions are asked by stock holders.

Time will tell the story. We are in the middle of the book now.

 

GM as a whole has issues, but do not lump Caddy with the rest of their crap. I am not a GM guy, but I can see how Caddy management has basically improved their products where they are profitable and products people want to buy.

 

You might need to read a different "book".. try The Innovators Solution by Clay Christensen and Michael E. Raynor

Focusing just on Profitable and traditional term ROI (measured in anything < 5-10 years) is a classic explanation of the innovators dilemma (another of Christensen's books). In fact, the theories also explain why GM could not likely beat Toyota in a head-to-head fight about hybrids. It needed to change the game.

I see the volt as a reasonable example of "new market" disruption as PHEV/EVss' will probably not sell well in Japan. Since part of Totyota's competitive advantage is the ability to sell into the relatively closed Japanese market, the lack of a Japanese market for EV/PHEV provides GM's volt effort some protection via " asymmetric motivation" (a critical element of any disruptive innovation) from the market leader in hybrids -- and they had a long lead time on Ford. The Volt has new elements of performance that changes the market decision process (its not just MPG vs cost vs performance). Yes the margins are lower but GM is gaining experience, market leadership and new customers. Hopefully this was a "disruptive strategy" from GM.. and they are looking at it that way with the right time frame in mind. So far their management statements has been consistent with both.

 

Interesting yahoo finance video. Tesla is given kudos on targeting the wealthy consumer who may have a Tesla as a second car with the Primary as a ICE or Hybrid. As far as the future they like the fact that they plan on building an affordable car in the future but the host thinks they will be most successful competing against MB, BMW and Porsche in the Status car area. Tesla may never be another GM a car company for the masses, but a successful niche play.

Why Tesla’s Winning and Other Electric Car Companies Are Failing | Daily Ticker - Yahoo! Finance

 

I've learned the hard way that predicting the future wastes both my time and others. At least I've learned that other's predictions have the same shortcomings. Tesla is not only making a great electric car, but also a great car.

The leadership seems to get what the other car companies don't want to face. Owners want to buy cars that don't fail...even if they abuse them. When I see what Telsa is doing to establish themselves, I see this very long range planning. The net result is that a Telsa buyer pays a big premium. This premium is basically "insurance" for any possible repairs. Financially, it does not make sense for me, however, in the future car market it will be a difference maker. Telsa may be a niche player, but they are planning to make that a HUGE niche.

 

Someone please help me here.
I am not a believer in conspiracy theories.....not at all.
But every time I read a story on EVs, you can't even go 2 sentences into it, before you read the words "eco-minded", "green", "saving the Earth/planet", "co2", "global warming/greenhouse gasses", "good for the environment"

IT IS NAUSEATING.

[Not that I don't believe in the environmental benefits of EVs....I do, and am in full agreement with studies showing even a 100%-coal grid has co2 emissions roughly on par with a gasoline hybrid and fewer with a less co2-intensive grid.]

It's just that I don't understand why the focus on EVs is so 1-dimensional. Why does no one ever tout their other benefits:

(1) zero-tailpipe emissions means the power-plant smokestack"tailpipe" is far outside the city, resulting in far fewer problems with smog, asthma, lung cancer, etc.

(2) reduced dependence on foreign sources of petroleum.....even if much of a nation's electricity is generated from imported oil and natural gas (Japan, S. Korea), an EV will still travel further per unit of petroleum consumed.
Not to mention, a lower trade deficit, stronger currency, strategic security, and de-funding of OPEC and other unstable and/or hostile regimes.

I made a similar comment a few posts ago in an article about EVs in Europe.

The question I have is this: why on earth, especially in places that are far more dependent on imported energy than the U.S. (EU, Japan) is there no mention of the EV benefit of (2) above?

Is there some conspiracy or mass disinformation campaign going on from the oil companies? Is it just sloppy and/or biased reporting in the media (btw, Forbes is a right-wing rag) that gets picked up in the public and simply becomes accepted as "conventional wisdom"?

I am asking this because this seems to have been the same pattern of perceptions towards hybrids when they first came out a decade ago. And this perception still persists in right-wing world, though hybrids have now entered the mainstream. In fact, I believe it would still be going on with hybrids, if it were not for the Volt, which has a very specific reduce-foreign-oil aspect to it (Bob Lutz called global warming a "crock of sh*t")
I also believe the Prius [Prius is spellchecked on this site!!!?] deserves some blame for this perception -due to various reasons- but that's for another post.

But I do want to hear what people have to say about this 1-dimensional portrayal of EVs. Is it just lazy thinking on a mass scale? Or is it a concerted effort promoted by powers-that-be that stand to lose if EVs succeed? Why do we describe EV drivers as "eco-minded" as opposed to "patriotic" for trying to help their country instead of the planet?

Yes, hybrids are cheaper and don't have the limitations of EVs. But in a democratic country the public appetite for government incentives is driven by perception . If the public were properly informed of the benefits of EVs other than reduced co2, then there would be an incentive structure that would make them worth it at a price point which factors in their limitations.

 

It would support your point better if you could identify the posts that are 1 dimensional. I don't see a single post along those lines here and rarely see it in other threads here. If the complaint is a lot of press articles are 1 dimensional, then point out the press articles. It is not clear at all about who is giving you nausea. Once that is better identified, you probably will get more focused responses.