GCC: Nissan shifting EV focus to affordability instead of range

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
WetEV said:
GRA said:
evnow said:
So, we are at 200 miles of "nominal" range.
+1. I would add that many, perhaps most people also require an emergency reserve (drive to the hospital etc.) that may be considerably greater than low battery, and a lot of them would like to have at least two days of autonomy in case there's a power outage overnight (or they simply forget to charge), so they can still get to work and back and have time to make other arrangements for the following day. Not that that will help in a widespread outage for a prolonged period, but it does cover at least the more common problems.

So now we are 500 miles of nominal range. :roll:

Do I hear 1000 miles?
If that's what it takes to get people to buy the car unless forced to (e.g. China), then that's what it takes. But how did you get from 200 to 500 miles, let alone 1,000? I consider the Bolt to have more than adequate range for two days routine use plus emergency reserve for everyone except super/mega commuters. For many 150 miles may do it, and for considerably fewer 100 may be enough. But it's got to be guaranteed range, not range before deductions.
 
evnow said:
Joe6pack said:
You know, I was driving my 2012 LEAF yesterday and the thought occurred to me: Why doesn't Nissan continue to offer a 24kWh LEAF? What would its price point be? Regardless of how much range we all "think" we need or "feel" we need, 72-84 miles is more than adequate for daily use - even in the US - as a commuter car. Most of us are going to have multi-car households anyway. I guess Nissan does not feel that this market exists.


I agree with 75 miles being "adequate" for daily use.

But, there are 2 issues.

1. People generally don't buy different cars for different uses, unless you are in the top 1%. When people have multiple cars, it is usually for multiple people (or some old cars not disposed off).

2. 75 mile range needs to be "usable" all-weather range. Not from full to turtle range in summer on slow roads.

And then you have range degradation over time. So, for 75 (or 100) miles of usable all-weather freeway range ?

First, you need 75 miles from full to "battery low". This is because, once you get into "battery low" you are into range anxiety zone. So, that adds some 25 miles.

Second, we need some 20% more for freeway driving.

Third, some 30% for cold weather.

Forth, some 20 to 30% for battery degradation over time.

So, we are at 200 miles of "nominal" range.

And yet many of us have gotten along just fine with our 24kWh LEAFs for many years and thousands of miles. I might have, on occasion, wished for more range, but I never wished I had paid more.
 
Joe6pack said:
And yet many of us have gotten along just fine with our 24kWh LEAFs for many years and thousands of miles. I might have, on occasion, wished for more range, but I never wished I had paid more.
Yes we all did.

But that is because we are committed to (fill in the blank).

If EVs need to go from 1% market share to 10%, we need 200 mile range cars for about $25k after tax credits. It would also help if they are slightly bigger, like the camry/accord size and in compact CUV size too.

After 10% - it would be all about cutting prices and coming up in various size and form segments to beat ICE marketshare and finally send ICE to sunset.

Now - for Nissan is it a bad idea to purely go for low price EV space ? May be not. But I don't think that's the where the most volumes really are.
 
GRA said:
how did you get from 200 to 500 miles, let alone 1,000?

The same way you got to 200 miles.

Assume everyone is the same.
Assume that someone needs X miles.
Multiply X by a de-rating factor.

Range needed isn't a single number but a distribution. Some with lower miles need than median, some with higher miles than needed.

The Leaf with a 24kWh battery is fine for large minority. Maybe even 10%. Probably not majority in the USA. Sure, it isn't the wonder car some wanted.

The Leaf is a very nice commuting and around town car.



EVNOW said:
If EVs need to go from 1% market share to 10%, we need 200 mile range cars for about $25k after tax credits. It would also help if they are slightly bigger, like the camry/accord size and in compact CUV size too.

Yes, more diversity will be needed for more market share. Pickups, 12 passenger vans, larger and smaller, and more. Along with commuting and around town car.
 
WetEV said:
The Leaf is a very nice commuting and around town car.
For my household,

Around town: yes
Commuting: Only if I inconvenience someone to use their power to recharge.

At $30k ? No way
 
My blank=saving money. And that's something most people can agree on. A sub $20,000 24 kWh LEAF could almost be a free car depending on the gas mileage of your current commuter car and the distance you currently commute.

Gas was $4/gallon and my Jeep got 18mpg on my 42 mile commute back when I first leased my LEAF in 2012. Given the $7500 federal tax credit and Georgia's $5000 tax credit at the time, I was essentially able to get a new car for free as the lease payment equalled the fuel savings.

Of course, gas prices fluctuate, but I could see a lot of people coming to the same conclusion if the option were available. Right now, there is no truly affordable commuter range/2nd car EV on the market.
 
Joe6pack said:
My blank=saving money. And that's something most people can agree on. A sub $20,000 24 kWh LEAF could almost be a free car depending on the gas mileage of your current commuter car and the distance you currently commute.

Gas was $4/gallon and my Jeep got 18mpg on my 42 mile commute back when I first leased my LEAF in 2012. Given the $7500 federal tax credit and Georgia's $5000 tax credit at the time, I was essentially able to get a new car for free as the lease payment equalled the fuel savings.

Of course, gas prices fluctuate, but I could see a lot of people coming to the same conclusion if the option were available. Right now, there is no truly affordable commuter range/2nd car EV on the market.
This arithmetic only pans out for the idiots with Jeeps

Now compare to someone with a brain, who might consider a LEAF vs a Toyota Prius Prime. The latter costs under $20k in a lot of markets (I paid $17k after tax credits) and I average about 100 mpg in my non-ideal use case with commuting that is too far for either the 24 or 30 kWh LEAF. I *could* spend ~ $30k for a 40 kWh LEAF (that may require a charging stop to make my work commute after a few short years of degradation) or spend $17k for the Prime and an additional $30 a month for fuel for a car good for ~ 20 years.
 
WetEV said:
GRA said:
how did you get from 200 to 500 miles, let alone 1,000?

The same way you got to 200 miles.

Assume everyone is the same.
Assume that someone needs X miles.
Multiply X by a de-rating factor.

Range needed isn't a single number but a distribution. Some with lower miles need than median, some with higher miles than needed.

The Leaf with a 24kWh battery is fine for large minority. Maybe even 10%. Probably not majority in the USA. Sure, it isn't the wonder car some wanted.

The Leaf is a very nice commuting and around town car.
No one here is assuming that everyone here is the same, only that some greater minimum range is required to justify paying tens of thousands for a car for most people. If you move or change jobs, a sub-100 mile car may no longer be "a very nice commuting and around town car", it may become an expensive lawn ornament, and any car so expensive yet so inflexible is a hard sell. We've had a fair number of 1st gen. BEV owners here who've experienced that inflexibility personally. Range boosts both flexibility and utility, the only question is how much is enough for a large number of people. After 7 years of experience, we know that sub-100 miles before deductions isn't enough for most people (at least, not at current prices), even for many of the far more motivated early adopters who've now moved on to longer range BEVs, switched to PHEVs or HEVs, or even gone back to ICEs.
 
GRA said:
WetEV said:
GRA said:
how did you get from 200 to 500 miles, let alone 1,000?

The same way you got to 200 miles.

Assume everyone is the same.
Assume that someone needs X miles.
Multiply X by a de-rating factor.

Range needed isn't a single number but a distribution. Some with lower miles need than median, some with higher miles than needed.

The Leaf with a 24kWh battery is fine for large minority. Maybe even 10%. Probably not majority in the USA. Sure, it isn't the wonder car some wanted.

The Leaf is a very nice commuting and around town car.
No one here is assuming that everyone here is the same, only that some greater minimum range is required to justify paying tens of thousands for a car for most people.

Totally missed my point, I see. BEVs are not going to replace most cars for decades, much as ICE didn't replace horses for decades. I'm thinking about the next 1%, and the 2% after that, not yet most people. Remember when gasoline power "won" which you claim was just after 1900, the automobile was a toy for rich people. Large numbers didn't come until more than a decade later, with the Model T. My grandfather saw a gasoline motorcar for the first time in the 1920's. More than half of the horses were still working in 1940.

You want the minimum range that works for most people. Most people can't buy a BEV due to manufacturing limits. Couldn't make them if ordered. It would make more sense to make the range enough for the minority that actually buy a BEV (Or a PHEV). Cost reductions and range improvements can, will and are coming later.

If you really wanted to replace the maximum number of miles with electric power, you would push for PHEVs, not BEVs. If you wanted the maximum reduction in gasoline usage for the minimum cost, you would push to make all new cars "weak hybrids", so the engine shuts down to save gasoline at stops.

A higher range BEV will appeal to fewer people because of higher cost. Yes, T esla has shown that market exists. Look wider. A question of balance.

Real, positive change is mostly evolutionary.

"No Worries" plug-in range of slightly more than 20 miles or so would cover half of the passenger vehicle miles driven in the USA. A "No Worries" plug in range of 100 miles would cover 85%. Your trips are in the last 15%.

Fig4_5.gif
 
WetEV said:
GRA said:
WetEV said:
The same way you got to 200 miles.

Assume everyone is the same.
Assume that someone needs X miles.
Multiply X by a de-rating factor.

Range needed isn't a single number but a distribution. Some with lower miles need than median, some with higher miles than needed.

The Leaf with a 24kWh battery is fine for large minority. Maybe even 10%. Probably not majority in the USA. Sure, it isn't the wonder car some wanted.

The Leaf is a very nice commuting and around town car.
No one here is assuming that everyone here is the same, only that some greater minimum range is required to justify paying tens of thousands for a car for most people.
Totally missed my point, I see. BEVs are not going to replace most cars for decades, much as ICE didn't replace horses for decades. I'm thinking about the next 1%, and the 2% after that, not yet most people. Remember when gasoline power "won" which you claim was just after 1900, the automobile was a toy for rich people. Large numbers didn't come until more than a decade later, with the Model T. My grandfather saw a gasoline motorcar for the first time in the 1920's. More than half of the horses were still working in 1940.

You want the minimum range that works for most people. Most people can't buy a BEV due to manufacturing limits. Couldn't make them if ordered. It would make more sense to make the range enough for the minority that actually buy a BEV (Or a PHEV). Cost reductions and range improvements can, will and are coming later.
Agreed, and for those who are willing to choose a BEV, that range is something over 100 miles before deductions (less if after). About 5 years ago I suggested that mainstream consumers wouldn't even consider BEVs until they had 150 miles EPA range at no more than $30k, but that was with a nationwide average price/gallon of $3.50 or higher, and while it's rising again we're still well below that. OTOH, in high gas price states like California and Hawaii we're now over $3.50/gal, so I expect to see more movement to BEVs (and longer range PHEVs) in those areas.
See below.

WetEV said:
If you really wanted to replace the maximum number of miles with electric power, you would push for PHEVs, not BEVs. If you wanted the maximum reduction in gasoline usage for the minimum cost, you would push to make all new cars "weak hybrids", so the engine shuts down to save gasoline at stops.
Which is exactly what I have been suggesting will be the mainstream choice for years now, as you should be aware.

WetEV said:
A higher range BEV will appeal to fewer people because of higher cost. Yes, Tesla has shown that market exists. Look wider. A question of balance.

Real, positive change is mostly evolutionary.

"No Worries" plug-in range of slightly more than 20 miles or so would cover half of the passenger vehicle miles driven in the USA. A "No Worries" plug in range of 100 miles would cover 85%. Your trips are in the last 15%.

WetEV said:
Do you realize you're quoting the arguments I've been making for years now back to me? :lol: I expect most mainstream consumers will opt for PHEVs of 20+ miles AER for some years yet, but those who are more adventurous and/or are multi-car households with the ability to L2 charge may opt for BEVs. The rate of uptake and the ratio between the two is primarily dependent on gas prices, second on car prices, and third on the growth of charging infrastructure. All three will need to move simultaneously for there to be a rapid transition.

Along that line, via GCC:
Will 20 percent of Americans buy an electric for their next car? Take our Twitter poll
https://www.greencarreports.com/new...tric-for-their-next-car-take-our-twitter-poll

A new survey from AAA released last week reported that 20 percent of Americans say they plan to buy an electric car the next time they purchase a new car.

That contrasts sharply with the less than one percent of Americans who buy electric cars today.

It's not clear were the discrepancy lies, whether in range improvements for the latest electric cars, consumers who actually intend to buy electric but then can't find a model or a deal they like when they actually get to a showroom, survey error, or some other factor.

AAA said it sees growing demand every year for electric cars in its survey, and that this is especially true now that the latest models have longer ranges and the latest advanced safety features.

The AAA survey cited decreasing range anxiety and higher reliability as primary reasons that more drivers are planning to buy electric cars. Respondents also reported high interest in the latest advanced safety features, which the latest electric cars such as the Nissan Leaf and Tesla Model 3 offer.

Among drivers who said they would not buy an electric car, lack of public charging stations was one of the main motivating factors.
Naturally, just because 20% of the survey respondents say the next car they buy will be an EV, no one should expect anywhere near that number to actually do so. i'd be extremely surprised if the actual % were as high as 10%, but that includes HEVs. The original AAA article is here: https://newsroom.aaa.com/2018/05/1-in-5-us-drivers-want-electric-vehicle/
 
Joe6pack said:
This is revisionist history. To say that the LEAF could have had a 150 mile range and be affordable 8 years ago simply isn't true. [...]

Who has said that? I think you are still pretty far away from addressing the point. I won't say "my" point, because it is really Mr. Ghosn''s point. He is quoted as saying:

http://www.greencarcongress.com/2018/04/201080424-nissan.html

Ghosn said the companies only recently determined that 300km was the key milestone, as car owners on average drive just around 50km a day. “You could not have guessed this [result] through studies,” he said. “You had to have 500,000 [electric] cars on the ground to understand that consumers do not put autonomy on top of their concerns any more when you cross 300km.”

So, the question isn't whether the Leaf could have been made affordably at or near this range sweet spot 8 years ago. The question is whether one might have known where the sweet spot was, at that time, and worked toward it with greater speed. Instead Nissan appeared to think, incorrectly, at least for the US, that they were close enough to the sweet spot.

They compounded the matter, in my view, by erring on the side of semi-in-house battery efforts, and by seemingly being quite stubborn about this for too many years. Further illustrating at the time that they were a bit removed from understanding that they needed to evolve more quickly away from 24 kWh, if memory serves they actually floated the idea of a luxury 24 kWh Infiniti. What were they thinking?

I think they had bought too much into the idea that 24 kWh was sufficient to get them to a higher volume market than they ultimately achieved, at least in the US. On that infiniti, to make matters worse, instead of recognizing the opportunity (how about a 50-60 kWh Infiniti for $20k-$30k more than the Leaf, and some improved battery tech with better life expectancy in all conditions?... might this not have offered an interesting competitive posture to the undeniable demand for the Model S?) their Infiniti management at the time ultimately did not seem to understand the value of going electric. Oh well.

Anyway, there were people around at the time who thought Nissan was mis-judging the market particularly in that they did not move quickly enough to offer significant improvements on their 24 kWh start. How about a 2013 or 2014 Leaf with 36 kWh, or a 36 kWh option for $10k more? How long did it take them? When was the first 30 kWh Leaf.... 2016? 5 years after the compromise? I guess they thought 24 kWh was good enough for awhile? Why not even try something like what Tesla was doing, by offering a larger battery for more money?

By the time Nissan reaches the US with a ~60 kWh 2019 Leaf, if they do, they will essentially have given Chevy and Tesla a 2 year and 1.5 year lead respectively. They seem to have lost at least some of their first mover advantage. Well, I think there will still be good value in the vehicle, if they address certain matters.

addendum:

After years (decades I guess) of trying, we finally got a major auto company executive on the side of true progress and electric vehicles. He was not playing games, at least not to the degree of others. He would not only pursue BEVS, but he would do it with the idea of being responsive to market demand and trying to make a profit. However, I think the tragedy of the matter was that, having become convinced that there might be some good business in BEVS, he bought too much into certain arguments. I surmise that he bought overly much into the argument that commutes are only usually a short distance x, and so a BEV with range yx can be one where there will be demand in six figures per year. His multiplier was insufficient, IMO. He also seems to have been burdened with inferior battery technology (in terms of kWh, even though seemingly solid in safety).

I respect Mr. Ghosn. He is smart, decisive capable and many other things. A reason I leased a Leaf around 2012, even though I knew it was a bad compromise for me, and even though I suspected Mr. Ghosn was not understanding certain things, was that I guess I wanted to throw my hat in and say yes to the fact that Nissan was showing some leadership. However, this does not mean their understanding of the overall market was correct - I think at least some of us knew it was off.
 
GRA said:
WetEV said:
Do you realize you're quoting the arguments I've been making for years now back to me? :lol: I expect most mainstream consumers will opt for PHEVs of 20+ miles AER for some years yet, but those who are more adventurous and/or are multi-car households with the ability to L2 charge may opt for BEVs. The rate of uptake and the ratio between the two is primarily dependent on gas prices, second on car prices, and third on the growth of charging infrastructure. All three will need to move simultaneously for there to be a rapid transition.

A difference is that I don't expect a rapid transition. I'm expecting evolution, not revolution. Over 1% market share the first year just isn't the sort of thing that happens when replacing a incumbent technology. Getting to 1% market share for plug in cars in 6 years and growth at 15% a year is more realistic, and what happens next is more likely continuation of the growth, not a sudden increase to 20+% market share. Sure, there are events that might change that growth rate such as a spike or collapse in oil prices, economic events, and political things that might decrease that rate such as the impending end of subsidies. I really don't care much about the PHEV:BEV ratio. BEVs are more reliable and PHEVs (aka BEVs with training wheels) can appeal to more people.

GRA said:
That contrasts sharply with the less than one percent of Americans who buy electric cars today.

Ah, I keep pointing out that plug in sales are more than one percent of sales in the USA. It has been that way for a year.

Total Vehicle Sales in the United States seasonally adjusted 17.5 Million annual rate in April
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/TOTALSA

19,681 plug in vehicles sold. Annual rate of 236,172.
https://insideevs.com/monthly-plug-in-sales-scorecard/

Do the math.

1.3%

It's been a year. Update your ideas.

1111-1.png
 
LeftieBiker said:
The Beetle was self-evidently a cheap little deathtrap. The Leaf was not. There was no way to tell by looking at the Leaf that it would lose battery life much faster than Nissan predicted. Your Leaf has lost most of its value (because of the battery issues) but has not lost most of its range. You really don't know what it's like to pay that much for a car that loses both its resale value AND its utility.
I can no longer drive it to where I need to go. I can't sell it either. Therefore it has lost its utility for me and become essentially a lawn ornament. Maybe the reasons are different, the distance to my destinations have changed more than the Leaf's range has. But still, I've noticed the range decrease in the year I've owned it. One trip that would consistently land me 20% left on the battery once I got home, even going close to highway speeds, now won't let me get home with more than 9%, even creeping along at 35mph the whole way. Sure, I may still have 11 bars. But what good is that to me now?

Yes, I see lots of people here on MNL that hate Leafs now that they've tried them out and found out how fast these batteries degrade. Sure, people are going to hate that situation. And sorry they had to be the guinea pigs. But what do you want me to do about it? Go start a rally and protest in front of Nissan dealerships that they shouldn't sell electric cars?

I feel like I'm too neutral. The Nissan haters feel like I don't hate Nissan enough. The Nissan lovers feel like I don't love Nissan enough. I don't care if a bunch of people spent too much on Nissan's money making science project. Well, maybe I do somewhat. But I've learned a lot of things I wouldn't have had they not. I would have never had the chance to drive an electric car had they not. Sure, I haven't had to charge my Leaf in over week because I hardly use it now. But for some reason I still like it. Same with my wife. After all she's been through with me hypermiling just to barely make it places and she freezing to death in the process she actually doesn't want me to sell it. It's one of those love-hate relationships you can't get over.
 
WetEV said:
GRA said:
WetEV said:
Do you realize you're quoting the arguments I've been making for years now back to me? :lol: I expect most mainstream consumers will opt for PHEVs of 20+ miles AER for some years yet, but those who are more adventurous and/or are multi-car households with the ability to L2 charge may opt for BEVs. The rate of uptake and the ratio between the two is primarily dependent on gas prices, second on car prices, and third on the growth of charging infrastructure. All three will need to move simultaneously for there to be a rapid transition.
A difference is that I don't expect a rapid transition.[./quote]
What would make you think that I do? After all, it's taken us 7 years to get this far, but I do expect an exponential ramp rate to kick in at some point.

WetEV said:
I'm expecting evolution, not revolution. Over 1% market share the first year just isn't the sort of thing that happens when replacing a incumbent technology. Getting to 1% market share for plug in cars in 6 years and growth at 15% a year is more realistic, and what happens next is more likely continuation of the growth, not a sudden increase to 20+% market share. Sure, there are events that might change that growth rate such as a spike or collapse in oil prices, economic events, and political things that might decrease that rate such as the impending end of subsidies. I really don't care much about the PHEV:BEV ratio. BEVs are more reliable and PHEVs (aka BEVs with training wheels) can appeal to more people.
BEVs should be more reliable - whether they are or not depends on the particular model. What they aren't as yet is more durable, and that's critical too.

WetEV said:
GRA said:
That contrasts sharply with the less than one percent of Americans who buy electric cars today.

Ah, I keep pointing out that plug in sales are more than one percent of sales in the USA. It has been that way for a year.

Total Vehicle Sales in the United States seasonally adjusted 17.5 Million annual rate in April
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/TOTALSA

19,681 plug in vehicles sold. Annual rate of 236,172.
https://insideevs.com/monthly-plug-in-sales-scorecard/

Do the math.

1.3%

It's been a year. Update your ideas.

1111-1.png
[/quote]
My ideas are that U.S. LDV PEV sales in 2017 made up 1.16% of all U.S. LDV sales. Whether or not we can get to 2% this year remains to be seen, but given the Model 3 plus several other more acceptable PEVs (I-Pace, Kona/Niro) will be available this year, I think it's possible. And the Model 3 should finally move BEV sales alone past the 1% threshold. I also think there's a decent chance California will get to 10% EV sales this year (3% HEV, 2.5% BEV, 2.0% PHEV plus a fraction of a % from FCEVs last year).
 
GRA said:
I do expect an exponential ramp rate to kick in at some point.

What do you think a 15% growth rate is, anyway?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_growth

GRA said:
My ideas are that U.S. LDV PEV sales in 2017 made up 1.16% of all U.S. LDV sales. Whether or not we can get to 2% this year remains to be seen

Getting to 2% this year would be faster than exponential growth. Not impossible, but unlikely to happen, or to persist if it does happen.

Technology takes time to mature. Don't expect the world to change for better overnight.
 
WetEV said:
GRA said:
I do expect an exponential ramp rate to kick in at some point.

What do you think a 15% growth rate is, anyway?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_growth

GRA said:
My ideas are that U.S. LDV PEV sales in 2017 made up 1.16% of all U.S. LDV sales. Whether or not we can get to 2% this year remains to be seen

Getting to 2% this year would be faster than exponential growth. Not impossible, but unlikely to happen, or to persist if it does happen.

Technology takes time to mature. Don't expect the world to change for better overnight.
I think the Model 3 will be the primary factor in whether or not we get to 2% this year, along with rising gas prices, and the new 'CUVs' from jaguar and Hyundai/Kia. Maybe the LEAF will also make a significant contribution, but I have my doubts.
 
GRA said:
WetEV said:
GRA said:
I do expect an exponential ramp rate to kick in at some point.

What do you think a 15% growth rate is, anyway?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential_growth

GRA said:
My ideas are that U.S. LDV PEV sales in 2017 made up 1.16% of all U.S. LDV sales. Whether or not we can get to 2% this year remains to be seen

Getting to 2% this year would be faster than exponential growth. Not impossible, but unlikely to happen, or to persist if it does happen.

Technology takes time to mature. Don't expect the world to change for better overnight.
I think the Model 3 will be the primary factor in whether or not we get to 2% this year, along with rising gas prices, and the new 'CUVs' from jaguar and Hyundai/Kia. Maybe the LEAF will also make a significant contribution, but I have my doubts.

I think it is most strongly correlated with gas prices. IMHO, most mainstream (i.e not early adopters/fanbois) will switch once it makes economic sense. We aren't there yet. EVs aren't less expensive than their ice counterparts and while they do have advantages, they also have shortcomings as well. Consumers (humans) will change in response to stress (economic stress). Otherwise, growth could simply be slow, but steady.

With China mandating EVs and Europe's natural suitability for EVs and EV friendly policies, demand for gas could actually go down which would lower prices for US consumers. Couple that with relatively EV unfriendly policies and a country more suited to gas powered cars and the growth of EVs in the US could actually lag the rest of the world.
 
Joe6pack said:
I think it is most strongly correlated with gas prices. IMHO, most mainstream (i.e not early adopters/fanbois) will switch once it makes economic sense. We aren't there yet. EVs aren't less expensive than their ice counterparts and while they do have advantages, they also have shortcomings as well. Consumers (humans) will change in response to stress (economic stress). Otherwise, growth could simply be slow, but steady.

Plug in car growth rate overall seems to be correlated with gas prices. As would be expected.

Economic advantage is complex, and clearly not the only factor. EVs are less expensive than ICEs for a few people now without subsidies.

Consider the range in electric prices: From 2.7 cents per kWh to over 50 cents per kWh.
Consider the range in gasoline prices. From $0.69 per liter in Houston to $0.90 per liter in Seattle to $1.56 per liter in BC to $1.91 per liter in Italy.
Consider the range in battery lifetime for the low cost Leaf: at least 4:1 across the USA. Cool places do far better.
Consider that the fuel savings will vary based on commute. A short commute will not repay the extra cost of an EV. Too long of commute will wear out the battery faster.

Someone in a high electric cost area, with cheap gasoline prices, hot climate and a very short commute isn't going to repay the extra cost of an EV. Even once EVs are cheaper to buy than ICE, an ICE still might be cheaper to drive, if gasoline is enough cheaper than electric power..

On the other hand, someone with the ideal length commute in BC Canada, with low electric cost, high gasoline price and cool climate, is probably already cheaper to drive an EV than an ICE. So why isn't BC overrun with Leafs and other low end EVs? I don't get this, and I don't really understand hockey as well.
 
WetEV said:
<snip>
On the other hand, someone with the ideal length commute in BC Canada, with low electric cost, high gasoline price and cool climate, is probably already cheaper to drive an EV than an ICE. So why isn't BC overrun with Leafs and other low end EVs? I don't get this, and I don't really understand hockey as well.
Presumably because winter range is inadequate, and Vancouver (at least) has good public transport, so a short range second car isn't needed. Volts sell well in Canada, and per GCR,
Shoppers in Canada may wait nearly a year to buy new Chevy Bolt EV
https://www.greencarreports.com/new...y-wait-nearly-a-year-to-buy-new-chevy-bolt-ev

I'd think anywhere with a cold climate is about the last place to see extensive demand for short-range BEVs (or BEVs in general), and given the long distances, lack of QC infrastructure and low population densities in much of Canada, PHEVs seem to be the rational choice to me there for now, at least outside of the more densely populated parts of Ontario/Quebec.
 
GRA said:
WetEV said:
On the other hand, someone with the ideal length commute in BC Canada, with low electric cost, high gasoline price and cool climate, is probably already cheaper to drive an EV than an ICE. So why isn't BC overrun with Leafs and other low end EVs? I don't get this, and I don't really understand hockey as well.
Presumably because winter range is inadequate,
Vancouver's climate is very similar to mine, cool rather than cold. The banana belt of Canada.
 
Back
Top