Where is the EV industry headed in the next 5 years ?

[Stoaty]

In addition to the health costs associated with pollution that WetEV and DanCar have mentioned, I will point out that, unlike CA, VA is NOT a producer of fossil fuels, but it IS a producer of EV fuel.

I didn't know Virginia had stopped mining coal...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

 

[RegGuheert]

In addition to the health costs associated with pollution that WetEV and DanCar have mentioned, I will point out that, unlike CA, VA is NOT a producer of fossil fuels, but it IS a producer of EV fuel.

I didn't know Virginia had stopped mining coal...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

My point is that, solar, hydro and nuclear are all fuels for EVs, but not ICEVs since coal-to-liquids is not currently a major transportation fuel in the US.

 

[Stoaty]

My point is that, solar, hydro and nuclear are all fuels for EVs, but not ICEVs since coal-to-liquids is not currently a major transportation fuel in the US.

I didn't realize you were talking about fossil fuels used for transportation... although coal to produce electricity may very well be used in many places by BEV.

 

[RegGuheert]

My point is that, solar, hydro and nuclear are all fuels for EVs, but not ICEVs since coal-to-liquids is not currently a major transportation fuel in the US.

I didn't realize you were talking about fossil fuels used for transportation... although coal to produce electricity may very well be used in many places by BEV.

Agreed. That's my point: VA can produce the fuels for BEVs. I meant to include it in the list in my list in my last post, but somehow left it off.

 

[DanCar]

One reason for taxes is to take externalities into account. The roads are "free", mostly, and it is hard to see how they could be anything but that. Everyone uses the roads, and most of the roads are are "free" to drive on. So then the wear on the roads from driving on them is a fine example of an externality. So a tax on vehicles roughly proportional to the wear and tear on the roads is one way of dealing with the situation that is both reasonably close to fair and doesn't have any perverse incentives. There are other externalities as well. Urban air pollution is a fine example. How to deal with this problem? We might just ignore it, and let the pollution kill people. We might regulate air pollution, by putting tight limits on the total pollution that one car can emit. Or we might tax the pollution.

Ignoring the cost of pollution leads to perverse incentives. A car that is a few dollars cheaper and pollutes a lot more is a "better" deal to the owner, but a far worse deal to everyone that must breath the pollution, suffering perhaps thousands of dollars in damages from health effects for every dollar "saved" by the owner of the car.

Regulating air pollution is the main way that we have dealt with the problem in the past. This can work, but can also lead to perverse incentives. For example, someone in a very rural area may be required to meet the standard needed to get city air clean, and this might not make economic sense as the emitted pollution has little effect in the sparsely populated rural area.

Or we might just tax air pollution. In an ideal case, if we taxed air pollution at the cost to others, and spend the tax collections on treating the sickness and otherwise compensating the harm from pollution, we might have a complete set of "economically fair" incentives. This would lead to higher taxes on ICE cars than electric cars, which isn't ludicrous.

Now, there is no ideal solution. Regulation has real advantages over taxation in some cases, even though it is less economically "fair".

Well said, Thanks!

 

[Stoaty]

Agreed. That's my point: VA can produce the fuels for BEVs. I meant to include it in the list in my list in my last post, but somehow left it off.

I don't see that as a good thing, since coal is the fossil fuel that when mined causes lung damage to the miners and wrecks the natural environment when "mountain top removal" is done, when burned adds mercury and other heavy metals and pollutants to the atmosphere, and through the CO2 emitted will end up cooking the planet. If the cost of externalities of burning coal were added into the price we wouldn't be able to afford to burn it. We need to get off coal as quickly as possible.

 

[RegGuheert]

I don't see that as a good thing, since coal is the fossil fuel that when mined causes lung damage to the miners and wrecks the natural environment when "mountain top removal" is done, when burned adds mercury and other heavy metals and pollutants to the atmosphere, and through the CO2 emitted will end up cooking the planet. If the cost of externalities of burning coal were added into the price we wouldn't be able to afford to burn it. We need to get off coal as quickly as possible.

Agreed fully in the same way that I feel that if the cost of externalities of burning oil were added into the price we wouldn't be able to afford to burn it.

 

[TimLee]

I don't see that as a good thing, since coal is the fossil fuel that when mined causes lung damage to the miners and wrecks the natural environment when "mountain top removal" is done, when burned adds mercury and other heavy metals and pollutants to the atmosphere, and through the CO2 emitted will end up cooking the planet. If the cost of externalities of burning coal were added into the price we wouldn't be able to afford to burn it. We need to get off coal as quickly as possible.

Agreed fully in the same way that I feel that if the cost of externalities of burning oil were added into the price we wouldn't be able to afford to burn it.

I agree that failing to cover the cost of externalities has driven lots of bad decisions.
I just question whether each individual state attempting to tax to cover all externalities is a very good approach.
Better for the state taxation to cover transportation infrastructure, maintaining and building roads, mass transit, high speed rail, commuter rail, etc.
Federal should handle environmental externalities.
Federal legislation with the Clean Water Act has done a lot to improve water quality, and Clean Air Act has improved a lot of things on environmental externalities of burning fossil fuels.
Admittedly has a long ways to go and with near grid lock at the federal level its worse than watching paint dry.
But I don't think 50 states with different approaches to environmental externalities is a very good idea either.

 

[RegGuheert]

I agree that failing to cover the cost of externalities has driven lots of bad decisions.
I just question whether each individual state attempting to attempting to tax to cover all externalities is a very good approach.
Better for the state taxation to cover transportation infrastructure, maintaining and building roads, mass transit, high speed rail, commuter rail, etc.
Federal should handle environmental externalities.
Federal legislation with the Clean Water Act has done a lot to improve water quality, and Clean Air Act has improved a lot of things on environmental externalities of burning fossil fuels.
Admittedly has a long ways to go and with near grid lock at the federal level its worse than watching paint dry.
But I don't think 50 states with different approaches to environmental externalities is a very good idea either.

I'm generally opposed to transferring rights that belong to the states to the federal government. Plus, I really don't think this falls within the enumerated powers for the federal govenment.

I guess the whole issue here is that if I need to pay an annual tax to pay for each EV I own to pay for roads and maintenance, then EVERY vehicle should be charged THE SAME ANNUAL TAX to pay for roads and maintenance. If they want to tax fuel, then do that, as well. But to charge me an extra tax BECAUSE I use less fuel or a different type of fuel is simply wrong. Since virtually ALL of my fuel is generated locally and virtually ALL of the liquid fuels come from outside Virginia, this tax looks just like a trade barrier, but in reverse - imports are preferred over local products. As I said before, it's craziness.

 

[TimLee]

I guess the whole issue here is that if I need to pay an annual tax to pay for each EV I own to pay for roads and maintenance, then EVERY vehicle should be charged THE SAME ANNUAL TAX to pay for roads and maintenance. If they want to tax fuel, then do that, as well. But to charge me an extra tax BECAUSE I use less fuel or a different type of fuel is simply wrong. Since virtually ALL of my fuel is generated locally and virtually ALL of the liquid fuels come from outside Virginia, this tax looks just like a trade barrier, but in reverse - imports are preferred over local products. As I said before, it's craziness.

I definitely agree the Virginia plan is crazy. :? :shock:
You're correct that the Federal government taking responsibility for environmental externalities certainly isn't enumerated.
Individual states rarely ever did anything about it either. Most states and local governments have only done the right thing on environmental externalities after being forced to by the federal government.
Clearly Virginia doesn't know what they're doing with separate unequal taxation for electric vehicles that they don't charge ICE drivers? :? :? :?

 

[GetOffYourGas]

I agree that failing to cover the cost of externalities has driven lots of bad decisions.
I just question whether each individual state attempting to attempting to tax to cover all externalities is a very good approach.
Better for the state taxation to cover transportation infrastructure, maintaining and building roads, mass transit, high speed rail, commuter rail, etc.
Federal should handle environmental externalities.
Federal legislation with the Clean Water Act has done a lot to improve water quality, and Clean Air Act has improved a lot of things on environmental externalities of burning fossil fuels.
Admittedly has a long ways to go and with near grid lock at the federal level its worse than watching paint dry.
But I don't think 50 states with different approaches to environmental externalities is a very good idea either.

I'm generally opposed to transferring rights that belong to the states to the federal government. Plus, I really don't think this falls within the enumerated powers for the federal govenment.

I guess the whole issue here is that if I need to pay an annual tax to pay for each EV I own to pay for roads and maintenance, then EVERY vehicle should be charged THE SAME ANNUAL TAX to pay for roads and maintenance. If they want to tax fuel, then do that, as well. But to charge me an extra tax BECAUSE I use less fuel or a different type of fuel is simply wrong. Since virtually ALL of my fuel is generated locally and virtually ALL of the liquid fuels come from outside Virginia, this tax looks just like a trade barrier, but in reverse - imports are preferred over local products. As I said before, it's craziness.

I just want to add that air/water quality is absolutely an issue that crosses state lines. As an example, drive through NY's Adirondack mountains, and you'll see the effects of acid rain - large areas of devastated forests, largely a result of the coal burned in our neighbors up wind. This implies a federal level of control.

 

[GRA]

I agree that failing to cover the cost of externalities has driven lots of bad decisions.
I just question whether each individual state attempting to attempting to tax to cover all externalities is a very good approach.
Better for the state taxation to cover transportation infrastructure, maintaining and building roads, mass transit, high speed rail, commuter rail, etc.
Federal should handle environmental externalities.
Federal legislation with the Clean Water Act has done a lot to improve water quality, and Clean Air Act has improved a lot of things on environmental externalities of burning fossil fuels.
Admittedly has a long ways to go and with near grid lock at the federal level its worse than watching paint dry.
But I don't think 50 states with different approaches to environmental externalities is a very good idea either.

I'm generally opposed to transferring rights that belong to the states to the federal government. Plus, I really don't think this falls within the enumerated powers for the federal govenment.

I guess the whole issue here is that if I need to pay an annual tax to pay for each EV I own to pay for roads and maintenance, then EVERY vehicle should be charged THE SAME ANNUAL TAX to pay for roads and maintenance. If they want to tax fuel, then do that, as well. But to charge me an extra tax BECAUSE I use less fuel or a different type of fuel is simply wrong. Since virtually ALL of my fuel is generated locally and virtually ALL of the liquid fuels come from outside Virginia, this tax looks just like a trade barrier, but in reverse - imports are preferred over local products. As I said before, it's craziness.

I just want to add that air/water quality is absolutely an issue that crosses state lines. As an example, drive through NY's Adirondack mountains, and you'll see the effects of acid rain - large areas of devastated forests, largely a result of the coal burned in our neighbors up wind. This implies a federal level of control.

AFAIK, all federal pollution laws are justified under the Commerce clause, implying a monetization of externalities. For example:

"In a novel application of the Commerce Clause, a federal court decided in United States v. Bishop Processing Co., 287 F. Supp. 624 (D.C. Md. 1968), that the movement of Air Pollution across state lines from Maryland to Delaware constituted interstate commerce that is subject to congressional regulation. The plaintiff, the United States, sought an Injunction under the federal Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C.A. §§ 7401 et seq. [1955]) to prevent the operation of the Maryland Bishop Processing Company, a fat-rendering plant, until it installed devices to eliminate its emission of noxious odors. The defendant plant owners argued, among other contentions, that Congress was powerless to regulate their business because it was clearly an intrastate activity. The court disagreed. Foul-smelling air Pollution adversely affects business conditions, depresses property values, and impedes industrial development. These factors interfere with interstate commerce, thereby bringing the plant within the scope of the provisions of the federal air-pollution law."

 

[ydnas7]

Jan 8 2014 update

about 50/50 split between EVs and PHEVs, from here on it should favour PHEVs but not go outside of 40:60

Tesla is the first plug in car to outcompete its ICE/HEV equivalents for sales, a different trajectory than its competitors. http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2013/12/cains-segments-luxury-flagships/#more-676962

PHEV 40 plateaued last year, hopefully more price reductions will occur and more sales will continue. Its plateau hurt the forecast from a year ago.
iREX and Outlander should provide additional sales over the next 2 years.

Lease EVs ie 80-100mile EVs , Nissan was somewhat restrained, hopefully they can increment from 2700 cars/month to 3600car/month mid year
Compliance EVs with sales less that SMART's were excluded (Fit, Spark, 500e)

Effective action from Ford expected for PHEV 20 this year, more volume, wants to outdo GM.

Toyota's PHEV 6 (PIP) unloved but needed as Hyrdogen is really unworkable, and sales will still be necessary.

 

[adric22]

Toyota's PHEV 6 (PIP) unloved but needed as Hyrdogen is really unworkable, and sales will still be necessary.

The PiP is not 6 mile PHEV. If you are trying to round the numbers off like you did with the Volt and Energi products, then it should be a 10 since the Prius gets 11 miles in EV mode.

 

[Zythryn]

Toyota's PHEV 6 (PIP) unloved but needed as Hyrdogen is really unworkable, and sales will still be necessary.

The PiP is not 6 mile PHEV. If you are trying to round the numbers off like you did with the Volt and Energi products, then it should be a 10 since the Prius gets 11 miles in EV mode.

He is just using the officially tested AEV range, which is 6.
The EV range is in the 11-13 range as I recall. However, at the 6 mile mark in the EPA test the ICE engine does turn on, thus the AEV range of 6.

 

[LKK]

I see the pimplely face kid driving hopped up Hondas with tail pipes the size of trash cans going away in favor pimplyey faced kids driving hopped up EVs. These guys never drive far so no problem charging off their parents electricity. Its only a matter of time befor the aftermarket learns to provide batteries, inverters and motors capable of sub 4 second 0-60 times. Who knows, the Leaf your driving today may be the next hodrod.

 

[mbender]

RegGuheert wrote:
I'm generally opposed to transferring rights that belong to the states to the federal government.
Plus, I really don't think this falls within the enumerated powers for the federal government.

I just want to add that air/water quality is absolutely an issue that crosses state lines. As an example, drive through NY's Adirondack mountains, and you'll see the effects of acid rain - large areas of devastated forests, largely a result of the coal burned in our neighbors up wind. This implies a federal level of control.

AFAIK, all federal pollution laws are justified under the Commerce clause, implying a monetization of externalities.

I'd also argue that these powers are implied by the general Welfare clause of the Preamble to the Constitution (and "enumerated" in Article I's General Welfare Clause). Of course (per the link), "the General Welfare Clause appears to have achieved notoriety as one of the most contentious", so I don't think we are going to reach complete agreement here!

(Pardon the unorthodox quoting style.)

 

[ydnas7]

back to EVs and PHEVs

2014 prediction

I guess that LEAF will outsell Volt in 2014 in USA but that both Ford Energi and Toyota PiP will outsell the cohort of compliance cars.

Tesla will have another year of being the no.1 selling luxury flagship vehicle in the States (ICE or otherwise). Especially if the Model X sales are treated as same category ar Model S.

 

[ydnas7]

quick update 6 month YOY sales

2014 Jan-Jun USA sales BEV 25,844 + PHEV 29,129 total 54,973
2013 Jan-Jun USA sales plugin sales total 41,447
increment 13,526 vehicle or 32.6% YOY

the delay in getting Mitsubishi PHEV to USA and the go slow on GM Volt seem to be hurting the PHEV 30/40 class

Ford is keeping the PHEV 20 class healthy.

 

[ydnas7]

This year's world's no 2 best selling plugin vehicle is now Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV, just ahead of Tesla
http://ev-sales.blogspot.com.au/2014/08/world-top-10-july-2014.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

yet its MIA for the USA

that is actually materially reducing the velocity of plugin adoption in USA.
due to a Californian specific rule change.

The arrival of Outander PHEV changes the game for PHEVs similar to how the arrival of Tesla Model S changes the game for EVs