NYT says EV not worth it. Leaf = Versa

[mkjayakumar]

To answer the poll: No, I would not have bought without the Federal subsidy.

But...

- the NYT article should have done the cost analysis for the end consumer with the subsidy in place. It is absolutely clear, and you would agree too, that with additonal state subsidies LEAF is a no brainer. Because the world we are in today has those subsidies (until it runs out, which won't be for another few more years) and so for someone on the fence the cost for them today is what matters.

- ther other more important point is that, the subsidies are there to trigger and help mass adoption of a new technology, and once number of such vehicles goes above the a critical mass there is the expectation that the price will come down. So at any point in time the consumer is never going to pay the current prices against which this faulty analysis is done.

So your poll is against a price point which will never see reality.

 

[lenny]

No, I would most likely not have bought the Leaf without the subsidy (though I would have paid somewhere between the pre-subsidy and post-subsidy price). I would have bought it without the extra perks (like HOV lane access) though.

But, as many pointed out, the subsidy is in place, writing an article pretending it is not is not realistic. It is like me having a poll "Would you buy a Versa if there is a $7500 tax on top of what you pay for it?"

 

[mkjayakumar]

But, as many pointed out, the subsidy is in place, writing an article pretending it is not is not realistic. It is like me having a poll "Would you buy a Versa if there is a $7500 tax on top of what you pay for it?"

I live in Texas, so nothing beyond the Fed subsidy. In fact I am grateful that the oil men here didn't impose any 'clean-air/no-gas' tax.

 

[thankyouOB]

'clean-air/no-gas' tax.

I am not sure what that is.

 

[GRA]

My thanks to all who replied. There are far too many posts addressed to me/my comments to reply to individually, so I was writing a longish reply that answered the main points. Unfortunately, about 3/4 of the way through I managed to make the whole thing disappear, so I'll have to start over just as soon as I stop punching holes in the wall. That may not be for some time. :x

 

[GRA]

Okay, take two. Here's my answers to some of the replies, on points which some people think I was unaware of or weren't taking into consideration.

1. "Cars are bought for a variety of reasons, many non-economic."

Of course, and both the author of the article and I specifically said so (and I gave some of my own reasons). To state it more generally, people may make decisions on what car to buy based on one or more of the following: affordability; utility; performance; safety; image; energy security; environment. I put energy security and environment last, because that's about where they fall in importance in consumer surveys, i.e. in the AOTBE category.

2. "The subsidies were put in place (under a Republican administration) to speed up the adoption of EVs, improve energy security, etc. etc., and move them to the point where economies of scale would allow them to compete against ICEs without subsidies. And besides, fossil-fuels and nuclear continue to get subsidies, so why don't you include them?"

Sure. but the problem is that the main cost difference between ICEs and EVs is due to batteries, and despite the semi-monthly announcement of the latest gee-whiz battery breakthrough, I'm not holding my breath for any of these to get commercialized any time soon, if ever. I've been reading such battery announcements for 20+ years, and they go back at least to the dawn of EVs, when Thomas Edison was claiming that the NiFe battery he was developing would be 'the answer.' Battery development like almost all technology doesn't follow Moore's Law, and I doubt that we'll be seeing cheap, high energy density batteries that can compete with ICEs anytime soon. I will be happy to be proven wrong.

That being the case, I feel that the subsidies may well be retarding the only near-term approach that will bring the MSRP of EVs down to where they won't be immediately rejected by mainstream consumers who are comparison-shopping, and do so without subsidies: Battery leasing. It was Carlos Ghosn who said that the way the subsidy was written in the U.S. was the reason Nissan wasn't doing battery leasing here.

As to subsidies for fossil-fuels and nuclear, I have no intention of defending them. But for those who think that there is little likelihood of a change in government causing the subsidies for AFVs and related technologies to go away, I will point out that the largest (and most pleasant) political surprise of last year for me was Congress killing the corn ethanol subsidy and the tariff on Brazilian cane ethanol. Those programs had far more bipartisan support than AFVs and renewables do, and yet they're gone.

3. As for those who think my comments re the relative income levels of Leaf buyers vs. the rest of the country generalizes too much, well sure. However, as someone with an income well below $50k who can nevertheless afford to buy a Leaf (if it met my requirements, which is does not), I do feel qualified to comment on the issue. It may be acceptable to me for this transfer of wealth, but not I think to the majority, at least not for very long. If you're going to have a subsidy program I think one structured more like Cash for Clunkers would be more politically acceptable. Not that I expect to see such a law passed in the current political climate.

 

[thankyouOB]

Okay, take two. Here's my answers to some of the replies, on points which some people think I was unaware of or weren't taking into consideration.
support than AFVs and renewables do, and yet they're gone.

3. As for those who think my comments re the relative income levels of Leaf buyers vs. the rest of the country generalizes too much, well sure. However, as someone with an income well below $50k who can nevertheless afford to buy a Leaf (if it met my requirements, which is does not), I do feel qualified to comment on the issue. It may be acceptable to me for this transfer of wealth, but not I think to the majority, at least not for very long. If you're going to have a subsidy program I think one structured more like Cash for Clunkers would be more politically acceptable. Not that I expect to see such a law passed in the current political climate.

all this guff, and you dont own a Leaf?

 

[Stoaty]

Sure. but the problem is that the main cost difference between ICEs and EVs is due to batteries, and despite the semi-monthly announcement of the latest gee-whiz battery breakthrough, I'm not holding my breath for any of these to get commercialized any time soon, if ever. I've been reading such battery announcements for 20+ years, and they go back at least to the dawn of EVs, when Thomas Edison was claiming that the NiFe battery he was developing would be 'the answer.' Battery development like almost all technology doesn't follow Moore's Law, and I doubt that we'll be seeing cheap, high energy density batteries that can compete with ICEs anytime soon.

True, but the cost of batteries is projected to decrease at 6-8% per year, so in 5 years the subsidy may not be necessary.

 

[GRA]

Okay, take two. Here's my answers to some of the replies, on points which some people think I was unaware of or weren't taking into consideration.
support than AFVs and renewables do, and yet they're gone.

3. As for those who think my comments re the relative income levels of Leaf buyers vs. the rest of the country generalizes too much, well sure. However, as someone with an income well below $50k who can nevertheless afford to buy a Leaf (if it met my requirements, which is does not), I do feel qualified to comment on the issue. It may be acceptable to me for this transfer of wealth, but not I think to the majority, at least not for very long. If you're going to have a subsidy program I think one structured more like Cash for Clunkers would be more politically acceptable. Not that I expect to see such a law passed in the current political climate.

all this guff, and you dont own a Leaf?

Of course, not, because it doesn't meet my needs, nor does any available BEV (the Coda with the larger battery came closest). I am not an early adopter, but am a mainstream consumer. Only the Tesla S with the medium or large battery (actually, just the largest) fully meets my range requirement, and those cars are too expensive, larger than I need and even if they weren't, still vaporware.

 

[GRA]

Sure. but the problem is that the main cost difference between ICEs and EVs is due to batteries, and despite the semi-monthly announcement of the latest gee-whiz battery breakthrough, I'm not holding my breath for any of these to get commercialized any time soon, if ever. I've been reading such battery announcements for 20+ years, and they go back at least to the dawn of EVs, when Thomas Edison was claiming that the NiFe battery he was developing would be 'the answer.' Battery development like almost all technology doesn't follow Moore's Law, and I doubt that we'll be seeing cheap, high energy density batteries that can compete with ICEs anytime soon.

True, but the cost of batteries is projected to decrease at 6-8% per year, so in 5 years the subsidy may not be necessary.

I agree with the likely rate of decrease, and we'll probably see a similar rate of increase in energy density over the same period. I don't think that will be enough to move BEVs into the mainstream if the subsidies go away, and it would be far better if we were able to sell them without any right now. Maybe Envia, IBM or whoever will manage to commercialize their superbattery in that time period, but I'm not going to count on that based on past history:

Los Angeles Times: "The electric automobile will quickly and easily take precedence over all other" types of motor vehicles. "If the claims which Mr. Edison makes for his new battery be not overstated, there is not much doubt that it will make a fortune for somebody". (1901)

New York Times: The electric car "has long been recognized as the ideal solution" because it "is cleaner and quieter" and "much more economical". (1911)

Washington Post: ". . . prices on electric cars will continue to drop until they are within reach of the average family." (1915)

NYT: "Old electric may be the car of tomorrow." The story said that electric cars were making a comeback because "gasoline is so expensive today, principally because it is so heavily taxed [Sic!], while electricity is far cheaper" than it was back in the 1920s. (1959)

LAT: Story in the paper says American Motors Corporation is on the verge of producing an electric car, the Amitron, to be powered by lithium batteries capable of holding 330Wh/kg [as of today, 120-140 Wh/kg is typical, with Envia claiming they'll have a 400 Wh/kg battery available within 18 months]. Backers of the Amitron say "We don't see a major obstacle in technology. It's just a matter of time." (1967)

WP: Reports GM "has found a breakthrough in batteries" that "now makes electric cars commercially practical." The new zinc-nickel oxide batteries will provide the "100 mile range that general motors executives believe is necessary to successfully sell electric vehicles to the public." (1979)

WP: In an Op ed, WP avers that "practical electric cars can be built in the near future." By 2000, the average family would own cars, predicted the Post, "tailored for the purpose for which they are most often used." It went on to say that "in this new kind of car fleet, the electric cehicle could play a big role -- especially as delivery trucks and two-passenger urban commuter cars. With an aggressive production effort, they might save 1 million barrels of oil a day by the turn of the century." (1980) [Well, they're basically right, if still too optimistic timewise]

 

[Fabio]

I've seen the Model S at least 3 times in Bay Area highways and a couple of times around San Carlos backroads -- it looked pretty real to me.

Only the Tesla S with the medium or large battery (actually, just the largest) fully meets my range requirement, and those cars are too expensive, larger than I need and even if they weren't, still vaporware.

 

[GRA]

I've seen the Model S at least 3 times in Bay Area highways and a couple of times around San Carlos backroads -- it looked pretty real to me.

Only the Tesla S with the medium or large battery (actually, just the largest) fully meets my range requirement, and those cars are too expensive, larger than I need and even if they weren't, still vaporware.

And precisely how many have been delivered to customers?

 

[Fabio]

Tesla said its first deliveries would be on July 2012http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/its-time-build-your-model-s, I wouldn't call them vaporware until the end of July has come and gone.
If I were Tesla I would be very careful to deliver only the highest quality product, since EVs are under a scrutiny no other car has been under before. If that means slipping the delivery date, be it.

I've seen the Model S at least 3 times in Bay Area highways and a couple of times around San Carlos backroads -- it looked pretty real to me.

Only the Tesla S with the medium or large battery (actually, just the largest) fully meets my range requirement, and those cars are too expensive, larger than I need and even if they weren't, still vaporware.

And precisely how many have been delivered to customers?

 

[lpickup]

Sure. but the problem is that the main cost difference between ICEs and EVs is due to batteries, and despite the semi-monthly announcement of the latest gee-whiz battery breakthrough, I'm not holding my breath for any of these to get commercialized any time soon, if ever. I've been reading such battery announcements for 20+ years...

I wouldn't count on the breakthroughs to produce low-cost batteries (although they will produce BETTER batteries). What it's going to take is the maturation of the automotive battery mfg process and recouping the original investment that went into it. The breakthroughs are great, but those are not what we should be looking for to reduce costs of the current crop of batteries (rather, those new batteries are going to be extremely expensive as well at first--although one effect is that if there is a high demand for 300 or 500 mile range batteries it should put some price pressure on 100 mile range batts).

That being the case, I feel that the subsidies may well be retarding the only near-term approach that will bring the MSRP of EVs down to where they won't be immediately rejected by mainstream consumers who are comparison-shopping, and do so without subsidies: Battery leasing.

I do agree with you that the subsidies will have a retarding effect on the cost-competitiveness of EVs (although in my opinion, not because of the leasing angle). Towards the end of the subsidies, no doubt EV manufacturers will have a cheaper manufacturing cost, but the pre-incentive cost will be kept artificially high, so once the incentives run out I suspect we'll see a $7500 drop in the price of the vehicle (or close to it). Well, since the incentives are phased out, we'll see a $3750 and 2 $1875 drops instead, probably disguised somehow with extra options or something to make up that difference). That is a downside of such an incentive plan, but I don't have a good alternative that allows manufacturers to mitigate the risk associated with a revolutionary technology like this.

By the way, nice summary of news items related to battery and EV technology over the years. I know the point was that you're not expecting many of the new battery announcements to pan out, and while as I said above and I don't think that has much effect on the price premium (or lack thereof) of current EVs vs ICEVs, I did want to comment on why I think the situation today is different:

1) Laptops/tablets and cell phones have truly changed the rechargeable battery landscape. Even without the automotive piece, a LOT of work is being done on battery technology. With those devices being so prevalent nowadays and looking to continue to grow, there will definitely continue to be efforts to improve batteries and lower costs.

2) There is now significant momentum in the automotive sector for EVs. I really think we have neared the end of any further optimizations and tweaks we can do to the ICE to improve efficiency beyond electrifying at least part of the drivetrain. Assuming efficiency remains a concern (you could always make the assumption that gas prices are going to plummet and nobody cares about efficiency any more--and we've certainly all seen that happen to some extent), this will continue to drive increased focus on battery technology, far more so than in the past.

I suspect that in all these cases you mentioned the numbers just didn't work out. The batteries were too expensive and gas was too cheap. If the numbers had worked out and demand was sufficient, it's likely that some of those technologies may have seen the light of day.

Not that we've completely bridged that gap, but we're close enough that I think the tax incentive is enough of a push to get us over that hump.

 

[Desertstraw]

The NYT is hardly a reliable newspaper. When Joe Nocera was still a business commentator before being promoted to columnist, he wrote a totally dishonest column on the EV1. We all know that people who leased the EV1 were fanatically devoted to it and went to extraordinary efforts to save it. He featured one customer in his article who returned it shortly after getting it because he was dissatisfied.

As far as the current electric cars are concerned, if things go bad in Syria, i.e. Assad wins, Iran will be the dominant power in the Middle East and control the oil there. Many of the oil fields in Saudi Arabia and Gulf states are located in areas with a Shia majority. $5 gas will be a fond memory and electric cars will figuratively be worth their weight in gold.

 

[EvansvilleLeaf]

Payback? What payback? What the hell does payback have to do with nigh-universally depreciating functional goods? Why does this obsession only get grafted onto EVs? Does a Camry pay back? An Avalon? A Lexus? If our criteria for cars were financial only a lunatic would ever buy anything but well-used Kias and Daewoos. Never see payback mentioned on other cars.yes, and what is all this groaning and moaning over subsidies.
Yes, yes.
and what is all this moaning and groaning about subsidies?
the government does it all the time. it has made a rational choice (Bush started it) to offer rebates for the purchase of zev cars.
For other reasons, Uncle Sam, subsidized SUVs and large-size trucks through tax incentives for years.
it subsidizes ethanol and has the oil depletion allowance. it provides tax credits for education and health care and solar energy and insulating your home.

this is the real world. that poll idea is a red herring. We bought when we bought in the world that existed when we bought the Leaf.
woulda coulda shoulda...
no one will ever know.

Hardly a red herring, when the NYT is saying that for most people the extra upfront cost of a Leaf doesn't make sense, for _anyone who's thinking of buying a car_. Now here we have a group which is far more supportive of the technology (i.e. valuing it more highly) than mainstream buyers, and who have already made that decision. Now, if the poll shows that only a small minority of this group would be willing to buy the car without subsidies and perks, why on earth would anyone project that mainstream buyers (who mostly don't care about the technology or environmental issues) would be willing to pony up more money up front?

So let's stop all the jinking and juking, and just answer the very simple questions I posed.

Here, I'll help:

1. Yes/No

2. __ years

Of course it's a red herring. Have you ever seen a similar article about any other car? Extra upfront cost over what? The smaller, less well equipped, massively less powerful, noisier Versa? Why no articles on whether a Volvo C70 is worth the upfront costs over a Ford Focus (and they didn't even stretch the C1 platform to make the Volvo!)

 

[GRA]

Payback? What payback? What the hell does payback have to do with nigh-universally depreciating functional goods? Why does this obsession only get grafted onto EVs? Does a Camry pay back? An Avalon? A Lexus? If our criteria for cars were financial only a lunatic would ever buy anything but well-used Kias and Daewoos. Never see payback mentioned on other cars.yes, and what is all this groaning and moaning over subsidies.
Yes, yes.
and what is all this moaning and groaning about subsidies?
the government does it all the time. it has made a rational choice (Bush started it) to offer rebates for the purchase of zev cars.
For other reasons, Uncle Sam, subsidized SUVs and large-size trucks through tax incentives for years.
it subsidizes ethanol and has the oil depletion allowance. it provides tax credits for education and health care and solar energy and insulating your home.

this is the real world. that poll idea is a red herring. We bought when we bought in the world that existed when we bought the Leaf.
woulda coulda shoulda...
no one will ever know.

Hardly a red herring, when the NYT is saying that for most people the extra upfront cost of a Leaf doesn't make sense, for _anyone who's thinking of buying a car_. Now here we have a group which is far more supportive of the technology (i.e. valuing it more highly) than mainstream buyers, and who have already made that decision. Now, if the poll shows that only a small minority of this group would be willing to buy the car without subsidies and perks, why on earth would anyone project that mainstream buyers (who mostly don't care about the technology or environmental issues) would be willing to pony up more money up front?

So let's stop all the jinking and juking, and just answer the very simple questions I posed.

Here, I'll help:

1. Yes/No

2. __ years

Of course it's a red herring. Have you ever seen a similar article about any other car? Extra upfront cost over what? The smaller, less well equipped, massively less powerful, noisier Versa? Why no articles on whether a Volvo C70 is worth the upfront costs over a Ford Focus (and they didn't even stretch the C1 platform to make the Volvo!)

Of course I've seen such articles, all the time in Car mags, Consumer Reports and similar places. Potentially disruptive technologies make it into the major press because they're significantly different, not just minor variations on well-proven technology where anybody can easily make a comparison judgement.

 

[GRA]

Sure. but the problem is that the main cost difference between ICEs and EVs is due to batteries, and despite the semi-monthly announcement of the latest gee-whiz battery breakthrough, I'm not holding my breath for any of these to get commercialized any time soon, if ever. I've been reading such battery announcements for 20+ years...

I wouldn't count on the breakthroughs to produce low-cost batteries (although they will produce BETTER batteries). What it's going to take is the maturation of the automotive battery mfg process and recouping the original investment that went into it. The breakthroughs are great, but those are not what we should be looking for to reduce costs of the current crop of batteries (rather, those new batteries are going to be extremely expensive as well at first--although one effect is that if there is a high demand for 300 or 500 mile range batteries it should put some price pressure on 100 mile range batts).

+1. Careful now, we're bordering on a discussion based purely on facts and logic rather than emotion :lol:

That being the case, I feel that the subsidies may well be retarding the only near-term approach that will bring the MSRP of EVs down to where they won't be immediately rejected by mainstream consumers who are comparison-shopping, and do so without subsidies: Battery leasing.

I do agree with you that the subsidies will have a retarding effect on the cost-competitiveness of EVs (although in my opinion, not because of the leasing angle). Towards the end of the subsidies, no doubt EV manufacturers will have a cheaper manufacturing cost, but the pre-incentive cost will be kept artificially high, so once the incentives run out I suspect we'll see a $7500 drop in the price of the vehicle (or close to it). Well, since the incentives are phased out, we'll see a $3750 and 2 $1875 drops instead, probably disguised somehow with extra options or something to make up that difference). That is a downside of such an incentive plan, but I don't have a good alternative that allows manufacturers to mitigate the risk associated with a revolutionary technology like this.

I think your estimate of the likely price drop is high, as typical profit on an ICE is only around 2-2.5% (it was a lot higher for big SUVs in their heyday), and I doubt the manufacturers will be making any money on EVs for a couple of years yet. I suspect it won't be more than a couple of grand, always dependent on sales volume.

By the way, nice summary of news items related to battery and EV technology over the years. I know the point was that you're not expecting many of the new battery announcements to pan out, and while as I said above and I don't think that has much effect on the price premium (or lack thereof) of current EVs vs ICEVs, I did want to comment on why I think the situation today is different:

1) Laptops/tablets and cell phones have truly changed the rechargeable battery landscape. Even without the automotive piece, a LOT of work is being done on battery technology. With those devices being so prevalent nowadays and looking to continue to grow, there will definitely continue to be efforts to improve batteries and lower costs.

+1, the explosion of consumer electronics has driven battery advances for the last twenty years or more. But using thousands of consumer batteries like the 18650 to power cars isn't viable for anyone other than Tesla, whose customers are essentially immune to cost issues. Car batteries need to get bigger to reduce the number of cells, and thus the cost. I shudder every time I think of the number of connections in a Tesla battery - what ~7,000+ cells?

2) There is now significant momentum in the automotive sector for EVs. I really think we have neared the end of any further optimizations and tweaks we can do to the ICE to improve efficiency beyond electrifying at least part of the drivetrain. Assuming efficiency remains a concern (you could always make the assumption that gas prices are going to plummet and nobody cares about efficiency any more--and we've certainly all seen that happen to some extent), this will continue to drive increased focus on battery technology, far more so than in the past.

While I agree that greater hybridization is likely, I don't believe the ICE is dead yet by a long ways. Five years ago, how many cars could claim 40 mpg? Now, every major manufacturer has one or more. Lighter materials, direct injection, VVT, cylinder shutdown, auto-shut-off, Atkinson cycles, radiator shutters, small turbos etc. are all becoming mainstream. To paraphrase Mark Twain, reports of the ICE's death have been greatly exaggerated. :lol: Of course, they may be running on something other than gasoline.

I suspect that in all these cases you mentioned the numbers just didn't work out. The batteries were too expensive and gas was too cheap. If the numbers had worked out and demand was sufficient, it's likely that some of those technologies may have seen the light of day.

Not that we've completely bridged that gap, but we're close enough that I think the tax incentive is enough of a push to get us over that hump.

I certainly hope you're right, but unfortunately suspect I am. I hope to be proven wrong. There are so many things that can go wrong, from inability to scale up laboratory results, lack of/high price of necessary materials like rare earths for PM motors (95% of world supply comes from China, which has now put limits on exports) and so on.

 

[lpickup]

I think your estimate of the likely price drop is high, as typical profit on an ICE is only around 2-2.5% (it was a lot higher for big SUVs in their heyday), and I doubt the manufacturers will be making any money on EVs for a couple of years yet. I suspect it won't be more than a couple of grand, always dependent on sales volume.

Actually this was the part of my post where I was backing up your claim...so I thought you'd agree with me on this one! The phase out plan for the incentives calls for the incentives to phase to 50% ($3750) and then to 25% ($1875). I suspect that by the time the phaseouts start to occur (let's say the year before the drop to $3750) that Nissan will be at a point where the cost to build the car is competitive without the $7500 incentive, but the fact that the incentive is there will keep the MSRP artificially high (why would they NOT try to get an extra $7500 profit and try to recoup some of their losses (or at least lack of significant profit margin) in the early years? The following year when the incentive changes to $3750, I would expect the MSRP to drop by that amount. Or maybe in a less obvious fashion, they will offer additional features, and a more "basic" trim level that's cheaper. And yes, I think this will definitely be MANY years out.

But using thousands of consumer batteries like the 18650 to power cars isn't viable for anyone other than Tesla,

No, but the basic Li-ion technology is shared between the consumer and automotive versions and just like Moore's law in the electronics world, the battery world is still enjoying a yearly decrease in battery costs due to such huge volumes and the fact that that attracts a lot of really smart people to improve the manufacturing process.

While I agree that greater hybridization is likely, I don't believe the ICE is dead yet by a long ways. Five years ago, how many cars could claim 40 mpg? Now, every major manufacturer has one or more. Lighter materials, direct injection, VVT, cylinder shutdown, auto-shut-off, Atkinson cycles, radiator shutters, small turbos etc. are all becoming mainstream. To paraphrase Mark Twain, reports of the ICE's death have been greatly exaggerated. :lol: Of course, they may be running on something other than gasoline.

I agree with you there. There are certainly many applications for ICE that EV cannot handle. And even if we were in a situation where EVs would be appropriate for ALL kinds of duty (long trips, hauling 8-12 passengers, light and heavy truck use, busses, construction vehicles, ...) it would still take years and years to phase them all out. So for the foreseeable future, ICEVs will continue to be built and improved. However, I do think that huge R&D efforts will be needed to significantly improve mileage. Instead it seems to me to be a better use of R&D to work on improving EVs to handle more duty and save the world's oil and other fossil fuel reserves for things that will be really hard for electric to handle.

I certainly hope you're right, but unfortunately suspect I am. I hope to be proven wrong. There are so many things that can go wrong, from inability to scale up laboratory results, lack of/high price of necessary materials like rare earths for PM motors (95% of world supply comes from China, which has now put limits on exports) and so on.

That's the thing though--I think we are out of the laboratory already! I wasn't around for all of the previous timeframes you mentioned in your post, but I was around for some. I remember seeing a grand total of ONE electric vehicle from the 1970's until the present. It was definitely niche for all those years. Not so today. Now we've got thousands of EVs rolling off assembly lines each month and charging stations are popping up. Yes, rare earth magnet supply from China does concern me, and while this possibly fits into the category of "breakthrough", there is work going on to produce motors that use fewer or no rare earths at all in the motors. And it's also worth pointing out that China controls so much of the world's supply not so much because they happened to get lucky enough to have all the rare earth minerals physically located within their boundaries, but because it's so cheap to mine and process there (and I get an uneasy feeling when I think of why that is). There are other sources in the world that right now are not competitive with China. But if they start holding back exports, that just makes it financially feasible for these sources to come online.

 

[GRA]

I think your estimate of the likely price drop is high, as typical profit on an ICE is only around 2-2.5% (it was a lot higher for big SUVs in their heyday), and I doubt the manufacturers will be making any money on EVs for a couple of years yet. I suspect it won't be more than a couple of grand, always dependent on sales volume.

Actually this was the part of my post where I was backing up your claim...so I thought you'd agree with me on this one! The phase out plan for the incentives calls for the incentives to phase to 50% ($3750) and then to 25% ($1875). I suspect that by the time the phaseouts start to occur (let's say the year before the drop to $3750) that Nissan will be at a point where the cost to build the car is competitive without the $7500 incentive, but the fact that the incentive is there will keep the MSRP artificially high (why would they NOT try to get an extra $7500 profit and try to recoup some of their losses (or at least lack of significant profit margin) in the early years? The following year when the incentive changes to $3750, I would expect the MSRP to drop by that amount. Or maybe in a less obvious fashion, they will offer additional features, and a more "basic" trim level that's cheaper. And yes, I think this will definitely be MANY years out.

Aha, I misunderstood your intent. Okay, call us in general agreement although differing on the amount of the drop.

But using thousands of consumer batteries like the 18650 to power cars isn't viable for anyone other than Tesla,

No, but the basic Li-ion technology is shared between the consumer and automotive versions and just like Moore's law in the electronics world, the battery world is still enjoying a yearly decrease in battery costs due to such huge volumes and the fact that that attracts a lot of really smart people to improve the manufacturing process.

Now there I think I'll have to disagree. Whenever I see Moore's Law mentioned in the same breath as batteries, I feel it necessary to point out that Moore's Law is an outlier; the vast majority of technology development doesn't follow Moore's Law rates of improvement, and batteries never have. So, while there are lots of smart people hoping to make the next big breakthrough and cash in, all I can say is where are companies like Ovonics (NiMH) or Ballard Power Cells (fuel cells) now?

While I agree that greater hybridization is likely, I don't believe the ICE is dead yet by a long ways. Five years ago, how many cars could claim 40 mpg? Now, every major manufacturer has one or more. Lighter materials, direct injection, VVT, cylinder shutdown, auto-shut-off, Atkinson cycles, radiator shutters, small turbos etc. are all becoming mainstream. To paraphrase Mark Twain, reports of the ICE's death have been greatly exaggerated. :lol: Of course, they may be running on something other than gasoline.

I agree with you there. There are certainly many applications for ICE that EV cannot handle. And even if we were in a situation where EVs would be appropriate for ALL kinds of duty (long trips, hauling 8-12 passengers, light and heavy truck use, busses, construction vehicles, ...) it would still take years and years to phase them all out. So for the foreseeable future, ICEVs will continue to be built and improved. However, I do think that huge R&D efforts will be needed to significantly improve mileage. Instead it seems to me to be a better use of R&D to work on improving EVs to handle more duty and save the world's oil and other fossil fuel reserves for things that will be really hard for electric to handle.

I think we'll need both, and more. BTW, I don't know if you've read it, but I'd highly recommend "Sustainable Energy without the Hot Air" by David Mackay, a physicist at Cambridge. He shows how much energy is used by the UK, for what, what the sources are, how much renewable and other types of energy are actually available, and what it would take to replace/reduce all fossil fuels and/or nuclear. He then does the same thing for Europe as a whole, the U.S., and the world, all using simple math (algebra at most) and rounded numbers (appendices provide more detailed calcs for those who are so inclined).

He gives few if any conclusions, mostly just leaves it up to you to reach your own. This is the most accessible source of info on the subject for the general public; Indeed, everything inside the book other than copyrighted photos is free and can be found on the book's website, so you don't even have to buy it.

http://www.withouthotair.com/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I certainly hope you're right, but unfortunately suspect I am. I hope to be proven wrong. There are so many things that can go wrong, from inability to scale up laboratory results, lack of/high price of necessary materials like rare earths for PM motors (95% of world supply comes from China, which has now put limits on exports) and so on.

That's the thing though--I think we are out of the laboratory already! I wasn't around for all of the previous timeframes you mentioned in your post, but I was around for some. I remember seeing a grand total of ONE electric vehicle from the 1970's until the present. It was definitely niche for all those years. Not so today. Now we've got thousands of EVs rolling off assembly lines each month and charging stations are popping up. Yes, rare earth magnet supply from China does concern me, and while this possibly fits into the category of "breakthrough", there is work going on to produce motors that use fewer or no rare earths at all in the motors. And it's also worth pointing out that China controls so much of the world's supply not so much because they happened to get lucky enough to have all the rare earth minerals physically located within their boundaries, but because it's so cheap to mine and process there (and I get an uneasy feeling when I think of why that is). There are other sources in the world that right now are not competitive with China. But if they start holding back exports, that just makes it financially feasible for these sources to come online.

Molycorp has bought the only rare earth mine in the U.S. and is bringing it back into production, and scarcity will likely cause more prospecting and attempts to find work-arounds (as you note, i.e. Toyota and others working to develop PMs that don't use Neodymium).

I agree that EVs are a lot more available now than they were when I was selling AE systems a couple of decades ago (I had a few customers who owned them). In addition to cars there are millions of electric bicycles and scooters in the world, so we're a lot further along than we were. But I've been through a couple of 'EVs are here' cycles already, so I'm probably more sceptical than you. Certainly there've been far more Leafs and Volts made than EV1s, Rangers, RAV4s etc.