GRA
Posts: 12899
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Are PHEVs a transitional technology? Or a long lasting use case?

Sat May 08, 2021 4:36 pm

knightmb wrote:
Thu May 06, 2021 5:11 am
Next week I'm going to drive with my wife, nine-month-old son and two dogs from Portland, Ore., to Los Angeles. It's a journey that's nearly 1,000 miles and will take about 16 hours. There is no scenario in which I'd make the journey in an electric car or SUV.
I would argue that it would be easier just to rent a high MPG gas vehicle for the trip then. Why try to make it in a Hybrid or BEV? I wouldn't want to travel to Japan and then insist that I have a boat and should use it. It would be better getting a plane ticket.

Edit: I see now that what I wrote here was already beat to death in their comment section :lol:

Moral: Never buy a car based on an edge case.

Who chooses to go through the hassle of renting a car, hoping that the general type of car, never mind the specific model they want to rent, is available when they do so, when they can instead have the car that will take them everywhere they go sitting in their driveway or on the street, instantly available to load and unload for a trip, and usable in the meantime for all other uses? Renting in that situation strikes me as the edge case, instead of driving the car that meets your needs exactly the vast majority of the time and can work pretty well for most other cases (as here), and is generally cheaper in the long run as well.

Renting on Turo is probably an extreme case, but in order to rent the BEV (Bolt) I wanted to take up to the mountains to gather usage and charging data as well as driving characteristics I had to:

Walk to BART, 10 minutes.
Enter and wait on platform for train to arrive, about five minutes (it was a couple of minutes late).
Ride two stations, 10 minutes. Exit and wait for bus to leave (25 minutes).
Ride bus across bay (20-25 minutes).
Walk 3 miles to Turo owner (there was a bus, but by the time I could have boarded I could have waaked to my destination), 50 minutes.
Talk to owner, ask a few questions. get keys etc., 10 minutes.
Drive home, 30 minutes.
Figure out what needs to go where in the different space available compared to my car and load, 20-30 minutes.

Repeat in reverse when returning car.

That's two and a half hours, each way. Or, If a friend had been available during the day when I wanted to pick the car off and drop it off, I could have knocked an hour or so off that, but would have owed them a favor in future (Uber wasn't an option I would use during the pandemic, and would be far more expensive in any case). I'm willing to waste time and go well out of my way while conducting an experiment, but I'm not going to want to deal with all that for a regular trip.

Or, I could just load everything in my car the same as I do every trip, whenever its convenient for me to do so, hop in my car at the appropriate time and take off.
Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'. Copper shot, not Silver bullets.

GRA
Posts: 12899
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Are PHEVs a transitional technology? Or a long lasting use case?

Sat May 08, 2021 4:40 pm

jjeff wrote:
Thu May 06, 2021 5:39 am
knightmb wrote:
Thu May 06, 2021 5:11 am
Moral: Never buy a car based on an edge case.
Like people in my state do ALL the time!
I'd guess 1/2+ the people drive large pickups or SUVs all the time, on the off chance they'll need to haul something or need to get through 10" of snow a few times/year :roll: Most of the time these large vehicles are just used to transport one person back and forth to work or after work shopping, crazy really.

Right. and absent subscription services/MaaS becoming the norm going forward, most people will continue to buy cars based on the "Occasional Use Imperative". That being the case, a PHEV at least allows them to be ZE most of the time, which is also more efficient.
Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'. Copper shot, not Silver bullets.

GRA
Posts: 12899
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Are PHEVs a transitional technology? Or a long lasting use case?

Sat May 08, 2021 4:45 pm

jlv wrote:
Thu May 06, 2021 8:12 am
Next week I'm going to drive with my wife, nine-month-old son and two dogs from Portland, Ore., to Los Angeles. It's a journey that's nearly 1,000 miles and will take about 16 hours. There is no scenario in which I'd make the journey in an electric car or SUV.

Even with Tesla's widespread Supercharger network providing free electrons, we'd still be stuck sitting in the parking lot of a Chili's for some interminably long time waiting for the thing to recharge. And that's if a charger was even available. The situation with other cars and other charger networks is worse.
Well, that just skews the facts.

A friend just drove 1300 miles from MA=>FL (and back) to watch the Crew-2 launch in person. Their family of 4 used their Model Y for the trip and hit all v3 SuperChargers most of the way. No "interminably long time waiting".

I really want to a $2/gal "pollution tax" on gasoline. Then you can keep your PHEVs all you want.

How long did the trip take? How long would it have taken in a liquid-fueled car , or an FCEV assuming the infrastructure? Did they stop/ sleep when/where they wanted to, or at SCs and motels with charging because that's what they had to do?

As to the need for a carbon tax, no argument there. BTW, that would make renewable H2 just about comparable cost per mile to gas, at current larger station prices for H2 when transported and stored in liquid form.
Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'. Copper shot, not Silver bullets.

GRA
Posts: 12899
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Are PHEVs a transitional technology? Or a long lasting use case?

Sat May 08, 2021 11:54 pm

Warning, long post, some of which is OT for background info.
WetEV wrote:
Thu May 06, 2021 8:17 am
GRA wrote:
Wed May 05, 2021 9:52 pm
WetEV wrote:
Wed May 05, 2021 6:38 am
It is interesting how someone that has driven an EV for a few days is the source of so much understanding of EVs.

Us long term EV drivers don't know anything.
It's interesting that early adopters think they represent the priorities and outlook of the typical non-ideological drivers of the general public, who see no reason to switch unless the new tech provides them with essentially the same capabilities as the old tech plus something else they value, and does so for a comparable price.
LOL. Are you claiming that you are a "typical non-ideological driver"?
No, I'm atypical and ideological. But I'm also strongly pragmatic, and as I've mentioned I'm well aware of the differing priorities of early adopters compared to the general public.

WetEV wrote:
Thu May 06, 2021 8:17 am
Once again, the general public isn't a lump, it is a distribution. Horses had capabilities that cars didn't, like full self driving, so the automobile was doomed in GRA world.

Oh, please, that's just silly. BTW, at the moment the "lump" is the 98% or so of non-BEV cars being bought by the public.

WetEV wrote:
Thu May 06, 2021 8:17 am
While I do pitch PHEVs to some people, I find that the "Trump crowd" used to be totally against them. They would listen to BEVs on two levels: speed and acceleration, like results of Pikes Peak hill climb, and low cost for electric trucks for local delivery. After the Texas freeze, I've sent some stuff on people that plugged their house into a Ford F150 with "Pro Power Onboard generator", 7.2 kW. If they weren't Chevy Truck people, they might have been interested. Instead, they asked the local Chevy dealer when Chevy was getting something like this. Which I think is a win.

Better than nothing, but IMO a waste of time to worry about them now, as there are numerous groups easier to convince at the moment.

WetEV wrote:
Thu May 06, 2021 8:17 am
GRA wrote:
Wed May 05, 2021 9:52 pm
To date, BEVs fail that test. I had plenty of experience selling a new tech (RE) to customers, and am well aware of the very different priorities of those two groups.
Exponential growth isn't good enough for you? Or is a doubling time of 2.5 years is just too long for your quarterly mindset?

You're damned right I consider an artificially boosted (due to the pandemic) sub-2% take rate after a decade of bribery, in a function that everyone uses, demonstrates that the tech is still too premature to cross the chasm. Every survey over that same ten years has raised the same three issues for why people are hesitant to adopt BEVs: Price, Range, Infrastructure. PHEVs minimize or avoid all three issues until they improve enough to no longer be issues. Price and batteries are a lot closer to where they need to be than they were a decade ago; infrastructure still lags but is making some progress, at least for trips.


WetEV wrote:
Thu May 06, 2021 8:17 am
Why are you using your considerable sales skills to try to unsell LEAF and other BEV owners? What is your goal?

First, I'm not a "salesman" - I loathe the breed. I considered my job to be customer service, helping inform the customer of the various options to meet their needs and priorities, with the pros and cons of each fully laid out. If asked I would give my recommendation with the reasons for same, but the ultimate choice is theirs. It doesn't matter if I think it's sub-optimal, because that's an opinion based on my priorities not theirs. What matters most to me is that they be happy and satisfied with their choice, use it to their maximum advantage, and they will inform and probably convert others. One unsatisfied customer makes more noise and has more influence than 10-100 satisfied ones for a new product or tech, so that's to be avoided like the plague.

I am not aware of ever trying to "unsell" LEAF or other BEV owners, as they've already made their choice. However, having made a choice, most (male) owners have a fair amount of their egos wrapped up with it even if they aren't fanboys, and as a result tend to over-emphasize the advantages and downplay or overlook the disadvantages of their choice to potential buyers. As I don't have any ego wrapped up in a particular car or tech I'm technology-neutral, and believe in trying to provide the full range of information, pro and cons, to prospective buyers, and then let them make up their own minds.

So, in the case of the LEAF, I will point out that I consider the lack of an ATMS makes the long term durability of the battery and consequent effects on its range, render it likely less suitable for hot and cold climates than other BEVs with ATMS, but that it's probably a non-issue in climates like yours. In addition, I think the lack of a battery capacity warranty with explicitly defined capacity values, combined with Nissan's history of denying any problems which required a class-action lawsuit to get them to stand behind their product for early owners, should be a consideration for anyone requiring long-term viability from the battery.

Do you disagree with any of the above factual info? Does providing these facts represent trying to "unsell" someone to you? If so, then I will happily accept that's what I do, because that's info I would want to have if I were the potential customer in question.

WetEV wrote:
Thu May 06, 2021 8:17 am
GRA wrote:
Wed May 05, 2021 9:52 pm

Edit: On that point, and getting back directly on topic, the following is from ABG:
I'm not driving an electric car to California. Give me a plug-in hybrid

Electric car devotees are quick to decry plug-in hybrids since they still burn gasoline. Yet, this all-or-nothing position is counterproductive to the larger cause. Plug-in hybrids can run on gasoline, but in the typical use case, they rarely do. They'll mostly travel around on battery power, which will save a massive amount of CO2 from entering Earth's atmosphere. And in many cases, those savings never would've happened without the presence of that gasoline engine: Most buyers would have instead gone with a pure gasoline vehicle or at best, a traditional hybrid. I'm definitely not alone in my hesitancy to make longer journeys with an electric car.
The amusing thing is I have and will continue to suggest PHEVs and even HEVs or ICEs to people with a use case that fits best into.

And I have and will continue to do likewise. I have a friend who's an even more extreme example of the "active outdoors" demographic than I am, who's been driving and mostly self-maintaining one or another used Volvo wagon in the 40 years I've known him, and who I'd been keeping more or less up to date on the progress of PEVs/FCEVs and their infrastructure for the past five years or so. He's an environmentalist and has both solar water heating and grid-intertied PV for his home, so he's well prepped and more than willing to switch.

We hadn't communicated much in the past year, as his winter job where I'd usually see him was shut due to Covid, and so I was unaware that his latest Volvo had died a premature death (8 years & 132k, far less than he's usually gotten) late last year, leaving him looking for a replacement. AFAIK he's never held a 9-5 job in his life and he's in his mid-'70s now, so local commuting isn't an issue, although he does live out of town at the urban/wildland interface so his errands involve a fair amount of driving.

His normal "commute" to the winter job above is about 185 miles to the trailhead at Badger Pass in Yosemite @ 7,240', then a 9 mile ski with a net gain of another 1,300 feet or so. As in my case, the lack of Infrastructure at/on the way to the remote places he likes to visit rules out a BEV/FCEV for now, although his commute can finally be done with a BEV thanks to the recent Chargepoint site opening in Groveland (For Tesla a couple of years ago) and the coming soon EA site in Buck Mdws.

Anyhoo, being disappointed by the most recent Volvo he decided to buy his very first new car ever. He went looking, and after trying and rejecting the RAV4 (probably the HEV. IDK if the dealer didn't have a Prime or did but had the seemingly typical $5-$10k ADM) as too big and clumsy feeling, wound up with a CR-V hybrid. He's getting 38-40 mpg on trips, has room for all his and friend's gear and/or his dog, can like his Volvo wagons sleep two side by side (usually human + dog in his case) and cost him $31k before tax, far more than he's ever spent on a car before.

If a smallish battery PHEV CUV that met his needs had been available at a reasonable price, I'm sure he would have gotten it, as he says he often maxes out his battery charge via the regen paddle just descending the road from his house, but I can't argue with his choice given the available options right now.

OTOH, when we got together for the first time since January of last year and had dinner at my local brewpub Thursday night (Yay, Warriors!), I did suggest that when his wife's early RAV4 gave out, something like a Bolt EUV or similar 2WD BECUV would be a good fit, as she isn't doing her own long trips anymore when he's on one of his. She likes to sit up high to see, and with two replacement knees I suspect getting in and out of low cars may also be an issue, As she also has trouble now turning to see behind and to the sides I suggested a car with a rear-view camera, blind-spot warning, AEB etc. like his CR-V has would be a good idea. So I may still see them as an HEV + BEV household eventually - they're anything but averse to the idea, but like me keep equipment until it can no longer perform its job. Given both of their ages I doubt a further round of car buying is likely, and probably the next step should be MaaS AVs in any case.

WetEV wrote:
Thu May 06, 2021 8:17 am
Do notice about half of the miles in the typical PHEV are electric, unlike the claim above.

I disagree to some extent. To me, "typical use case" + "mostly travel around" refers to/implies routine local & regional use, not trips, although the other reading is also plausible. Providing better incentives for EV miles might boost the % from ca. 50 to maybe 70% but not much more, because people would be choosing PHEVs rather than BEVs precisely because of the trip capability (amongst other reasons).

WetEV wrote:
Thu May 06, 2021 8:17 am
Most buyers will go with an ICE or hybrid for years into the future. Will not be PHEVs or BEVs due to the manufacturing capacity, the infrastructure or the distribution of knowledge needed. Doubling time of roughly 2-3 years. Everything takes time.

I suspect the years will be somewhat fewer than you do, albeit upcoming bans will likely play a significant role in that.
Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'. Copper shot, not Silver bullets.

GRA
Posts: 12899
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Are PHEVs a transitional technology? Or a long lasting use case?

Sun May 09, 2021 12:34 am

LeftieBiker wrote:
Thu May 06, 2021 3:44 am
The onboard charger can be upgraded, obviously.

^^^And desperately needs to be. Charging from 80 to 100% at 86-87 deg. took me 47 minutes (started at 77%, took 3 min. IIRR to 80%; 80-90% took 18 min.; 29 min. from 90-100%) at an EA 150kW charger. Charging from 45 to 80% at a Chargepoint 50kW charger in slightly cooler temps on the way back (44kW max. IIRR. Don't have the data to hand) took the exact same time. These times are far too long for trips, although they may be okay for local DC charging.
Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'. Copper shot, not Silver bullets.

WetEV
Posts: 4383
Joined: Fri May 04, 2012 8:25 am
Delivery Date: 16 Feb 2014
Location: Near Seattle, WA

Re: Are PHEVs a transitional technology? Or a long lasting use case?

Sun May 09, 2021 10:23 am

GRA wrote:
Sat May 08, 2021 11:54 pm
Warning, long post, some of which is OT for background info.
So why the long sales pitch to against BEVs?

GRA wrote:
Sat May 08, 2021 11:54 pm
WetEV wrote:
Thu May 06, 2021 8:17 am
GRA wrote:
Wed May 05, 2021 9:52 pm
It's interesting that early adopters think they represent the priorities and outlook of the typical non-ideological drivers of the general public,
LOL. Are you claiming that you are a "typical non-ideological driver"?
No, I'm atypical and ideological. But I'm also strongly pragmatic, and as I've mentioned I'm well aware of the differing priorities of early adopters compared to the general public.
You claim to represent the general public vs the "early adopters"?

Oh, and do you claim that I'm not pragmatic?

GRA wrote:
Sat May 08, 2021 11:54 pm
WetEV wrote:
Thu May 06, 2021 8:17 am
Once again, the general public isn't a lump, it is a distribution. Horses had capabilities that cars didn't, like full self driving, so the automobile was doomed in GRA world.
Oh, please, that's just silly. BTW, at the moment the "lump" is the 98% or so of non-BEV cars being bought by the public.
Oh, so what is silly about a distribution?

Or is it silly to point out that horses had features like being intelligent, unlike automobiles?

GRA wrote:
Sat May 08, 2021 11:54 pm
WetEV wrote:
Thu May 06, 2021 8:17 am
Exponential growth isn't good enough for you? Or is a doubling time of 2.5 years is just too long for your quarterly mindset?
You're damned right I consider an artificially boosted (due to the pandemic) sub-2% take rate after a decade of bribery, in a function that everyone uses, demonstrates that the tech is still too premature to cross the chasm. Every survey over that same ten years has raised the same three issues for why people are hesitant to adopt BEVs: Price, Range, Infrastructure. PHEVs minimize or avoid all three issues until they improve enough to no longer be issues. Price and batteries are a lot closer to where they need to be than they were a decade ago; infrastructure still lags but is making some progress, at least for trips.
Chicken and egg problem is why subsides were needed. Sure, I agree that it likely that BEVs would have happened and taken over without subsidies. Would have been decade or more slower.

A large or even a full PHEV fleet doesn't help the key infrastructure need of BEVs, fast charging.

Not a case of PHEVs vs BEVs. PHEVs are a useful transitional technology for some people. So why are you trying so hard to kill BEVs?

GRA wrote:
Sat May 08, 2021 11:54 pm
WetEV wrote:
Thu May 06, 2021 8:17 am
Why are you using your considerable sales skills to try to unsell LEAF and other BEV owners? What is your goal?
As I don't have any ego wrapped up in a particular car or tech I'm technology-neutral, and believe in trying to provide the full range of information, pro and cons, to prospective buyers, and then let them make up their own minds.
Actually it seems to me you have a fair amount of ego wrapped up in your decision to not select a BEV.

GRA wrote:
Sat May 08, 2021 11:54 pm
So, in the case of the LEAF, I will point out that I consider the lack of an ATMS makes the long term durability of the battery and consequent effects on its range, render it likely less suitable for hot and cold climates than other BEVs with ATMS, but that it's probably a non-issue in climates like yours. In addition, I think the lack of a battery capacity warranty with explicitly defined capacity values, combined with Nissan's history of denying any problems which required a class-action lawsuit to get them to stand behind their product for early owners, should be a consideration for anyone requiring long-term viability from the battery.

Do you disagree with any of the above factual info?
The long term prospect of TMS vs no TMS depends on future technical developments and lots of other factors, so the answer isn't "factual" yet. For example, solid electrolyte batteries will likely need heating but not cooling for any application other than extreme performance. Of course, the 2011 LEAF didn't have future or 2021 battery technology, but by throwing money at the industry a lot of technical innovation has been funded. Including better LEAF batteries. And yes, buying the first non-trivial volume production electric car since the 1930's carries risk. Early adopters only should have applied in 2011.

The world has changed since 2011. Smell the flowers, notice the changes.

GRA wrote:
Sat May 08, 2021 11:54 pm
WetEV wrote:
Thu May 06, 2021 8:17 am
Do notice about half of the miles in the typical PHEV are electric, unlike the claim above.
I disagree to some extent.
What's the USA average again?
WetEV
#49
Most everything around here is wet during the rainy season. And the rainy season is long.
2012 Leaf SL Red (Totaled)
2014 Leaf SL Red
2019 eTron Blue

GRA
Posts: 12899
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Are PHEVs a transitional technology? Or a long lasting use case?

Mon May 10, 2021 12:50 am

WetEV wrote:
Sun May 09, 2021 10:23 am
GRA wrote:
Sat May 08, 2021 11:54 pm
Warning, long post, some of which is OT for background info.
So why the long sales pitch to against BEVs?

Because the overemphasis on BEVs, subsidizing the 'ultimate' solution, has delayed reductions in emissions via currently more practical and less expensive interim options.

WetEV wrote:
Sun May 09, 2021 10:23 am
GRA wrote:
Sat May 08, 2021 11:54 pm
WetEV wrote:
Thu May 06, 2021 8:17 am

LOL. Are you claiming that you are a "typical non-ideological driver"?
No, I'm atypical and ideological. But I'm also strongly pragmatic, and as I've mentioned I'm well aware of the differing priorities of early adopters compared to the general public.
You claim to represent the general public vs the "early adopters"?

Oh, and do you claim that I'm not pragmatic?

I claim that I'm more able to understand the general public's point of view than many early adopters, who've already made the change because it made sense to them. We all like to think that our reasoning is obviously superior, so most must share it.

As to whether or not you're pragmatic re BEVs, seeing as how you're driving a car that costs far more than one that would just provide basic transport, I suspect non-pragmatic issues have higher priorities with you than strictly pragmatic ones, but feel free to explain the use case and reasoning that led you to choose your e-Tron, what other vehicles you considered and why you rejected them; you already know my use case and reasoning.

WetEV wrote:
Sun May 09, 2021 10:23 am
GRA wrote:
Sat May 08, 2021 11:54 pm
WetEV wrote:
Thu May 06, 2021 8:17 am
Once again, the general public isn't a lump, it is a distribution. Horses had capabilities that cars didn't, like full self driving, so the automobile was doomed in GRA world.
Oh, please, that's just silly. BTW, at the moment the "lump" is the 98% or so of non-BEV cars being bought by the public.
Oh, so what is silly about a distribution?

Or is it silly to point out that horses had features like being intelligent, unlike automobiles?

I know a few people with far more experience of horses than I have who consider them fairly dumb. :lol: If you mean that some of them can follow a frequently-used route on their own as long as conditions are routine, I'll agree that they had some limited autonomous capability. OTOH, they couldn't saddle or harness themselves, were slow, required a large area to feed them, and required a lot of care. Ford grew up on a farm and he hated horse-powered farmwork, which is why he designed the Model T so farmers could use it as a replacement, including the ability to burn ethanol.

WetEV wrote:
Sun May 09, 2021 10:23 am
GRA wrote:
Sat May 08, 2021 11:54 pm
WetEV wrote:
Thu May 06, 2021 8:17 am
Exponential growth isn't good enough for you? Or is a doubling time of 2.5 years is just too long for your quarterly mindset?
You're damned right I consider an artificially boosted (due to the pandemic) sub-2% take rate after a decade of bribery, in a function that everyone uses, demonstrates that the tech is still too premature to cross the chasm. Every survey over that same ten years has raised the same three issues for why people are hesitant to adopt BEVs: Price, Range, Infrastructure. PHEVs minimize or avoid all three issues until they improve enough to no longer be issues. Price and batteries are a lot closer to where they need to be than they were a decade ago; infrastructure still lags but is making some progress, at least for trips.
Chicken and egg problem is why subsides were needed. Sure, I agree that it likely that BEVs would have happened and taken over without subsidies. Would have been decade or more slower.

A large or even a full PHEV fleet doesn't help the key infrastructure need of BEVs, fast charging.

Not a case of PHEVs vs BEVs. PHEVs are a useful transitional technology for some people. So why are you trying so hard to kill BEVs?

Who says I am? I'm saying let's stop throwing government money at trying to make the 'ultimate' solution work a few years earlier, and instead use perfectly acceptable and less costly interim solutions which have the capabilities most people require now. Those people for whom a BEV is a good choice now are free to choose them, and those for whom other solutions work better should be free to choose them as well. But everybody should make that choice without having to be bribed.

As for QCs, that will require fuel price hikes to make them profitable and only then will they rapidly proliferate. Until then, we're stuck with subsidising them, and I've said I'd you must subsidise something, it should be the infrastructure.

WetEV wrote:
Sun May 09, 2021 10:23 am
GRA wrote:
Sat May 08, 2021 11:54 pm
WetEV wrote:
Thu May 06, 2021 8:17 am
Why are you using your considerable sales skills to try to unsell LEAF and other BEV owners? What is your goal?
As I don't have any ego wrapped up in a particular car or tech I'm technology-neutral, and believe in trying to provide the full range of information, pro and cons, to prospective buyers, and then let them make up their own minds.
Actually it seems to me you have a fair amount of ego wrapped up in your decision to not select a BEV.

Why do you think so? It's not as if I wouldn't jump at the chance to buy a BEV or any other ZEV tech that met my needs. I haven't taken an out-of-state trip in more than a dozen years because I'm no longer comfortable polluting outside my own nest, as it were. I've been eagerly awaiting the arrival of such a ZEV, as I don't know how many more years I'll be able to do the kinds of things I like to do.vFor one thing, I've never been to Glacier NP, and I'd like to do so before the name is said ironically.

FCEVs/PHFCEVs can meet my operational requirements now, unlike BEVs currently, but don't meet the infrastructure, vehicle and fuel price requirements. BEV infrastructure is better but inadequate, prices are too high but closer, and QCs on trips is more expensive than gas.

I'm encouraged by the Bolt's new price, as I think it's the first BEV that approaches mainstream viability, although as noted in another post its QC rate is hopelessly inadequate for extended trips. I have great hopes for the coming generation of 800V+ CUVs, although their prices will likely be too high for another few years yet, and the next gen or two of battery chemistry should finally get us over the hump.

WetEV wrote:
Sun May 09, 2021 10:23 am
GRA wrote:
Sat May 08, 2021 11:54 pm
So, in the case of the LEAF, I will point out that I consider the lack of an ATMS makes the long term durability of the battery and consequent effects on its range, render it likely less suitable for hot and cold climates than other BEVs with ATMS, but that it's probably a non-issue in climates like yours. In addition, I think the lack of a battery capacity warranty with explicitly defined capacity values, combined with Nissan's history of denying any problems which required a class-action lawsuit to get them to stand behind their product for early owners, should be a consideration for anyone requiring long-term viability from the battery.

Do you disagree with any of the above factual info?
The long term prospect of TMS vs no TMS depends on future technical developments and lots of other factors, so the answer isn't "factual" yet.

Who's talking about the future - I'm talking about existing tech, and it was well known at the time that the Li-ion chemistries available in 2010 needed a TMS for longevity and cold weather range and, in some chemistries, safety. That hasn't changed yet.

WetEV wrote:
Sun May 09, 2021 10:23 am
For example, solid electrolyte batteries will likely need heating but not cooling for any application other than extreme performance. Of course, the 2011 LEAF didn't have future or 2021 battery technology, but by throwing money at the industry a lot of technical innovation has been funded. Including better LEAF batteries.

Battery R&D would have been funded anyway, as we use batteries for lots of things besides cars.

WetEV wrote:
Sun May 09, 2021 10:23 am
And yes, buying the first non-trivial volume production electric car since the 1930's carries risk. Early adopters only should have applied in 2011.

And they did, and Nissan didn't stand behind them until forced to, throwing away a lot of goodwill and hurting the rep of BEVs. Tesla largely counteracted that last, at least for a while.

WetEV wrote:
Sun May 09, 2021 10:23 am
The world has changed since 2011. Smell the flowers, notice the changes.

I note that at a time when battery packs cost at least $750 and probably closer to $1,000/kWh, a PHEV LEAF with a 6 or 8kWh pack instead of a 24kWh one would have been priced thousands less and met the full needs of a much larger % of the population, while also undercutting the Volt by several thousand $ and reducing pollution by a much larger margin, assuming larger sales due to the far more affordable price.

WetEV wrote:
Sun May 09, 2021 10:23 am
GRA wrote:
Sat May 08, 2021 11:54 pm
WetEV wrote:
Thu May 06, 2021 8:17 am
Do notice about half of the miles in the typical PHEV are electric, unlike the claim above.
I disagree to some extent.
What's the USA average again?

Just over 50% OVERALL. Why did you cut the rest of my comments which explained my statement?

The miles we should be worried about making ZE first are local errands and commuting in major urban areas, i.e. the places with the most concentrated pollution, and that's where the 52%? is almost certain to be.
Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'. Copper shot, not Silver bullets.

WetEV
Posts: 4383
Joined: Fri May 04, 2012 8:25 am
Delivery Date: 16 Feb 2014
Location: Near Seattle, WA

Re: Are PHEVs a transitional technology? Or a long lasting use case?

Mon May 10, 2021 7:49 am

GRA wrote:
Mon May 10, 2021 12:50 am
WetEV wrote:
Sun May 09, 2021 10:23 am
You claim to represent the general public vs the "early adopters"?
I claim that I'm more able to understand the general public's point of view than many early adopters, who've already made the change because it made sense to them. We all like to think that our reasoning is obviously superior, so most must share it.
Who would better understand the Model T future, an early adopter of automobiles or someone that counted on his horse?

I think about the future, you think about the present.

New technologies are either bottom up or top down. Mainstream is always later. Markets are distributions, not just the mainstream.

GRA wrote:
Mon May 10, 2021 12:50 am
WetEV wrote:
Sun May 09, 2021 10:23 am
GRA wrote:
Sat May 08, 2021 11:54 pm
Oh, please, that's just silly. BTW, at the moment the "lump" is the 98% or so of non-BEV cars being bought by the public.
Oh, so what is silly about a distribution?
Or is it silly to point out that horses had features like being intelligent, unlike automobiles?
I'll agree that they{horses} had some limited autonomous capability.
So therefor, according to your reasoning, horses could not be replace with automobiles. Automobiles don't have any autonomous capability at all. So automobiles can't replace horses.

BEVs are better if most charging is local and distributed rather than centralized. Which will be the case, decades in the future.

So you agree that the market is a distribution, not just the "mainstream"?

GRA wrote:
Mon May 10, 2021 12:50 am
WetEV wrote:
Sun May 09, 2021 10:23 am
Chicken and egg problem is why subsides were needed. Sure, I agree that it likely that BEVs would have happened and taken over without subsidies. Would have been decade or more slower.

A large or even a full PHEV fleet doesn't help the key infrastructure need of BEVs, fast charging.

Not a case of PHEVs vs BEVs. PHEVs are a useful transitional technology for some people. So why are you trying so hard to kill BEVs?
Who says I am? I'm saying let's stop throwing government money at trying to make the 'ultimate' solution work a few years earlier, and instead use perfectly acceptable and less costly interim solutions which have the capabilities most people require now.
Which, of course, explains why you are in favor of throwing government money at hydrogen. :lol: :roll:

GRA wrote:
Mon May 10, 2021 12:50 am
WetEV wrote:
Sun May 09, 2021 10:23 am
GRA wrote:
Sat May 08, 2021 11:54 pm

As I don't have any ego wrapped up in a particular car or tech I'm technology-neutral, and believe in trying to provide the full range of information, pro and cons, to prospective buyers, and then let them make up their own minds.
Actually it seems to me you have a fair amount of ego wrapped up in your decision to not select a BEV.
Why do you think so? It's not as if I wouldn't jump at the chance to buy a BEV or any other ZEV tech that met my needs. I haven't taken an out-of-state trip in more than a dozen years because I'm no longer comfortable polluting outside my own nest, as it were. I've been eagerly awaiting the arrival of such a ZEV, as I don't know how many more years I'll be able to do the kinds of things I like to do.vFor one thing, I've never been to Glacier NP, and I'd like to do so before the name is said ironically.
https://abetterrouteplanner.com/?plan_u ... 8903d10755

GRA wrote:
Mon May 10, 2021 12:50 am
Who's talking about the future - I'm talking about existing tech, and it was well known at the time that the Li-ion chemistries available in 2010 needed a TMS for longevity and cold weather range and, in some chemistries, safety. That hasn't changed yet.
I'm talking about the future. Actually in 2011, the TMS was seen as needed for longevity in hot places but not more of the USA, and is a tradeoff in safety. Having water based coolant close to the batteries is a fire risk. High performance requires cooling. What do you want, safety or performance? Nissan made many mistakes and did many things correctly. Oddly is it that you miss the wins and focus on the losses.

GRA wrote:
Mon May 10, 2021 12:50 am
WetEV wrote:
Sun May 09, 2021 10:23 am
For example, solid electrolyte batteries will likely need heating but not cooling for any application other than extreme performance. Of course, the 2011 LEAF didn't have future or 2021 battery technology, but by throwing money at the industry a lot of technical innovation has been funded. Including better LEAF batteries.
Battery R&D would have been funded anyway, as we use batteries for lots of things besides cars.
Yes, but to a lesser extent, and with different goals. Would have delayed the replacement of ICE with BEV and some green fuel PHEVs for the edge cases.
WetEV
#49
Most everything around here is wet during the rainy season. And the rainy season is long.
2012 Leaf SL Red (Totaled)
2014 Leaf SL Red
2019 eTron Blue

GRA
Posts: 12899
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Are PHEVs a transitional technology? Or a long lasting use case?

Mon May 10, 2021 10:05 pm

WetEV wrote:
Mon May 10, 2021 7:49 am
GRA wrote:
Mon May 10, 2021 12:50 am
WetEV wrote:
Sun May 09, 2021 10:23 am
You claim to represent the general public vs the "early adopters"?
I claim that I'm more able to understand the general public's point of view than many early adopters, who've already made the change because it made sense to them. We all like to think that our reasoning is obviously superior, so most must share it.
Who would better understand the Model T future, an early adopter of automobiles or someone that counted on his horse?

That's not the matter in question - we both agree generally on what the future will entail. What is the issue is which is the best current choice, because customers are buying now, not at some distant future point when the conditions have significantly changed. A better analogy is choosing between two breeds of horse, or perhaps between horses which almost everyone uses, vs. switching to camels. They're both required to do the same task, but they have different capabilities at the moment.

The few early camel adopters say that camels are eminently superior; the horse owners say "not to me, as my horse can go farther between meals than the camel, eats faster, ls cheaper to buy, lives longer, and I can buy feed for them anywhere." The camel partisans reply, "the camel is more efficient, can eat a wider variety of foods, and farts less. And the next generation of camels will cost no more to buy than a horse, go as far and live as long."

And the horse people say "call me when that happens. For now, what I need is a more efficient breed of horse, or maybe one that farts less most of the time, and can eat one other food when it's cheaper to do so."


WetEV wrote:
Mon May 10, 2021 7:49 am
I think about the future, you think about the present.

I have no trouble thinking about both, but I don't pretend that the future represents the present.


WetEV wrote:
Mon May 10, 2021 7:49 am
New technologies are either bottom up or top down. Mainstream is always later. Markets are distributions, not just the mainstream.

Which we've never had a disagreement on, so why keep making the point?

WetEV wrote:
Mon May 10, 2021 7:49 am
GRA wrote:
Mon May 10, 2021 12:50 am

I'll agree that they{horses} had some limited autonomous capability.
So therefor, according to your reasoning, horses could not be replace with automobiles. Automobiles don't have any autonomous capability at all. So automobiles can't replace horses.

BEVs are better if most charging is local and distributed rather than centralized. Which will be the case, decades in the future.

See above for my point about when people are buying. I've never argued that a particular 'tech' may not be superior in a given niche, it's whether that niche matters to most potential customers.


WetEV wrote:
Mon May 10, 2021 7:49 am
So you agree that the market is a distribution, not just the "mainstream"?

As above, I've never disputed it. What I've said again and again is that BEVs currently lack the necessary properties to be mass market now, absent subsidies and/or mandates, and we have an acceptable interim tech that can move us towards the ultimate goal without requiring subsidies, given the right incentives.

WetEV wrote:
Mon May 10, 2021 7:49 am

Which, of course, explains why you are in favor of throwing government money at hydrogen. :lol: :roll:

I've never been in favor of throwing government money at consumers to buy hydrogen cars any more than I'm in favor of throwing it at BEVs, PHEVs or what have you. I don't have any problems with throwing government money at RD&D, whether for batteries, H2, FCs, syn and biofuels, CCS, fusion, small modular nukes or who knows what. If people insist on subsidising something, then I'd rather see infrastructure (of whatever species) subsidized, not consumer products, because without the support infrastructure it doesn't matter how good the tech is, it's too limited in usefulness.


I don't need ABRP, Plugshare shows me there's still no way to get there using QCs. Why do you think I monitor the EA, and before them the SC networks so closely? Tesla's shown Kalispell as "Coming soon" every year since at least 2017 if not a year or two before, and I see they've moved it back yet again to 2022 now.

EA has no plans to expand that way either, and Glacier is just one of the places I want to go that it's difficult or impossible for me to reach using QCs; L2 doesn't cut it. That leaves aside the time factor, as until I retire all enroute time has to be subtracted from my free time.

Now, how about you giving us a demonstration of how pragmatic you are, by describing your use case and decision process that led you to your e-Tron, rather than some other option?

WetEV wrote:
Mon May 10, 2021 7:49 am

I'm talking about the future. Actually in 2011, the TMS was seen as needed for longevity in hot places but not more of the USA, and is a tradeoff in safety. Having water based coolant close to the batteries is a fire risk. High performance requires cooling. What do you want, safety or performance? Nissan made many mistakes and did many things correctly. Oddly is it that you miss the wins and focus on the losses.

I consider Nissan's decision to sell the LEAF nationwide when it was known that it wasn't suitable for the majority of U.S. climates to have been completely unacceptable, especially because they didn't bother to warn their customers who were unaware of that. So yeah, I focus on that. Different chemistries have different risks of thermal runaway. LMO, which was used in the original L packs, is one of the higher risk ones.

I said at the time that if they'd restricted sales to the PNW and NE, that would have been okay. Warning customers in hot and cold climates and letting them decide for themselves would also have been okay. They chose to do neither, and if it hadn't been for the class action suit, one of whose lead plaintiffs just happened to be the Chief Judge of the 9th Circuit's Court of Appeals at the time, they probably would have been perfectly willing to keep screwing their earliest customers and continue on unchanged.

In 2010 the existing batteries were fine for PHEVs, so R&D would have continued. As I've said before, a PiP with a real EV Hold mode would have been perfectly viable, as would a PHEV with a battery a bit bigger than the PiP's 4.4kWh, i.e. 6-8 kWh, given the type of incentives I've described. As battery costs came down, the cars would be cheaper or you get get a bigger AER for the same price.

U.S. gas prices peaked in 2012 and only dropped significantly in 2014 - do you think the U.S. HEV sales peak in 2013 was unrelated?
Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'. Copper shot, not Silver bullets.

WetEV
Posts: 4383
Joined: Fri May 04, 2012 8:25 am
Delivery Date: 16 Feb 2014
Location: Near Seattle, WA

Re: Are PHEVs a transitional technology? Or a long lasting use case?

Tue May 11, 2021 7:44 am

GRA wrote:
Mon May 10, 2021 10:05 pm
WetEV wrote:
Mon May 10, 2021 7:49 am
GRA wrote:
Mon May 10, 2021 12:50 am
I claim that I'm more able to understand the general public's point of view than many early adopters, who've already made the change because it made sense to them. We all like to think that our reasoning is obviously superior, so most must share it.
Who would better understand the Model T future, an early adopter of automobiles or someone that counted on his horse?
That's not the matter in question
GRA wrote:
Mon May 10, 2021 10:05 pm
I claim that I'm more able to understand the general public's point of view than many early adopters, who've already made the change
You might withdraw this statement. Rather than shoveling camels.

GRA wrote:
Mon May 10, 2021 10:05 pm
WetEV wrote:
Mon May 10, 2021 7:49 am
New technologies are either bottom up or top down. Mainstream is always later. Markets are distributions, not just the mainstream.
Which we've never had a disagreement on, so why keep making the point?
You keep insisting that the mainstream is the only thing that matters. I assert that niche markets matter especially during technology change.

GRA wrote:
Mon May 10, 2021 10:05 pm
WetEV wrote:
Mon May 10, 2021 7:49 am
GRA wrote:
Mon May 10, 2021 12:50 am
I'll agree that they{horses} had some limited autonomous capability.
So therefor, according to your reasoning, horses could not be replace with automobiles. Automobiles don't have any autonomous capability at all. So automobiles can't replace horses.

BEVs are better if most charging is local and distributed rather than centralized. Which will be the case, decades in the future.
See above for my point about when people are buying. I've never argued that a particular 'tech' may not be superior in a given niche, it's whether that niche matters to most potential customers.
"Most" isn't the goal at first. Getting a niche is.
Expanding the niche is next.
"Most" comes later.


PHEVs are a different niche. More complex than a BEV or an ICE, more expensive than an ICE at the beginning, more expensive than a BEV eventually. Likely appeal is during the transition, and later for edge cases.

GRA wrote:
Mon May 10, 2021 10:05 pm
WetEV wrote:
Mon May 10, 2021 7:49 am
So you agree that the market is a distribution, not just the "mainstream"?
As above, I've never disputed it. What I've said again and again is that BEVs currently lack the necessary properties to be mass market now, absent subsidies and/or mandates, and we have an acceptable interim tech that can move us towards the ultimate goal without requiring subsidies, given the right incentives.
PHEVs are subsidized now, removal of those subsidies would have large impact on their sales. You assure me you know exactly the incentives to replace those subsidies, expand the market to far bigger, and that those incentives are politically possible.

I doubt it.

GRA wrote:
Mon May 10, 2021 10:05 pm
I don't need ABRP, Plugshare shows me there's still no way to get there using QCs. Why do you think I monitor the EA, and before them the SC networks so closely? Tesla's shown Kalispell as "Coming soon" every year since at least 2017 if not a year or two before, and I see they've moved it back yet again to 2022 now.

EA has no plans to expand that way either, and Glacier is just one of the places I want to go that it's difficult or impossible for me to reach using QCs; L2 doesn't cut it. That leaves aside the time factor, as until I retire all enroute time has to be subtracted from my free time.
Overnight L2 is pretty nice. Wake up to a full charge, do your day, repeat as needed. Why wouldn't you like this? Not at all difficult. Sure, infrastructure isn't universal. Yet.

https://www.plugshare.com/location/314313

To my surprise, a possible trip in the etron as well. I wouldn't suggest relying on a single charger, but an overnight L2 or PlanB L2 might be realistic. Not impossible. Not difficult.
WetEV
#49
Most everything around here is wet during the rainy season. And the rainy season is long.
2012 Leaf SL Red (Totaled)
2014 Leaf SL Red
2019 eTron Blue

Return to “Business / Economy and Politics”