GRA said:
Yes, PHEVs will cost more than pure ICEs and HEVs which is why we need to make the perks sufficiently valuable,
Consider what might have happened with no perks, no mandates and no subsidies. EVs have long had an advantage at the very high end of the market. Even with no perks, something like the Tesla Model S (or the Porsche Taycan or the e-tron or the Ford Mach-E or ...) was going to happen, sooner or later. Batteries just keep getting better, the BEV advantage keeps growing. Quiet, smooth, clean, reliable and quick are marketable... and someone sooner or later would get one or more of these to market. Sure, first at crazy price level of custom cars. But then moving down market steadily.
When the selling price of an economy electric is less than that of an economy gas car, then the gas car is dead.]
Even Nissan had a shot, starting with the LEAF.[/quote
Sure, when BEVs achieve the price,
capability and longevity demanded. I've said as much many times, including in this thread. But we aren't there yet, and only PHEVs are currently suitable for the mass market without subsidies.
You make my point about subsidies not being needed at the high end. If you insist on subsidies, let's stop giving them to cars and instead put the money into charging infrastructure, because until that's available the mass market isn't going to switch.
WetEV said:
As many have pointed out decades ago, it is too early for a carbon tax. Consider one goal, minimizing the size and cost of government while reducing CO2 release at the economically optimal rate, considering both the cost of reduction and the total cost of releases. A subsidy works better when the alternative technology is less than 50% of the market.
A Pigovian tax, which should equal the "non-economic externality" cost, is less efficient than a Pigovian subsidy that also equals the cost, when the clean alternative is much smaller than the polluting.
We disagree. I believe that we need both carrots
and sticks.
WetEV said:
Toyota isn't a great example of fast, not their niche. If you design a PHEV for fast, it would look a lot like that AMG. There are limits to technology.
Of course there are limits, the question is are the limits significant for the typical user? No. Do you think the AWD ID.4 is going to be faster than the RAV4 Prime? Does it matter? They're aimed at the same market, have the same power but the VW is 300 lb. heavier, and it's going to be thousands of dollars more expensive. Feel/handling etc. issues aside, unless you're a super- or mega-commuter or are ideologically motivated, is there any rational reason to pick the ID.4 over the RAV4?
WetEV said:
Trucks, not pickups. HEV doesn't work well in long haul trucks. Not enough fuel economy gain for the additional cost. PHEVs even less point. Fuel cells not a starter. And BEV economic advantage is local only... but that's a big fraction of the business. Long haul BEVs might never make sense. Alternatives for long haul? A problem decades in the future.
Take the "save money" bypass from the culture wars.
FCEVs are pretty clearly going to be the eventual long-haul choice, absent liquid bio- or synfuel. There's billions being spent to build the infrastructure for them, as well as develop the trucks themselves, reduce the costs of green H2 etc. Leaving aside Nikola, who just signed a deal with an AZ utility to buy electricity at either 2.5 or 2.7¢ (sources differ) for electrolysis, you've got big companies like Daimler, Volvo, IVECO, Bosch all developing the trucks and powertrains, major utilities and countries making plans for and spending money for green H2 production, infrastructure and export, etc. But that's OT, and we can and have argued that many times elsewhere, so no need to do it here.
WetEV said:
Hamburger has a larger sales potential than NY strip. Who would have thought? So? Apple, meet Orange.
Which is why I included the Niro comparison, or feel free to do the RAV4/ID.4 comparo I mentioned above.
WetEV said:
A better comparison would be to my LEAF. Negative price difference, all gasoline savings, zero time to pay off.
The difference being that you wouldn't also need an e-tron, as the RAV4 would take you anywhere you need to go. But a better comparison for the LEAF would be the Niro PHEV or the Prius Prime, where the LEAF costs thousands more up front. Or, as mentioned above, just do the Niro comparison - no mixed fruit there.
WetEV said:
List price is not equal to cost. Mandates and subsidies need to be considered, for one. List price does not tell you what you can actually buy the car for. And so on.
No, no, you don't get to consider subsidies, or what kind of deal you can get from the sleazes at the dealership. My whole point is to get rid of subsidies to make the market act more rationally. Once again, Niro PHEV vs. BEV?
As someone commented today at GCC on the article announcing the Hyundai Tucson PHEV, "PHEV. The best of both worlds for me. Cheaper than EV. Home/solar charging for local miles. Gas infrastructure for road trips." That's the kind if sales argument that needs to be made for PHEVs, along with cost of electricity and perks (adjusted as I've mentioned).
