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

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Triggerhappy007 said:
GRA said:
I've said before that if an AWD PHEV CUV with a smallish battery pack had been available in 2016 or 17, I would have gone for it despite my wanting to go full ZEV. But neither GM or anyone else built that car.
Mitsubishi did, the Outlander PHEV. It had been out since 2013 and the US got it in 2017.
True but in my case it had too many drawbacks to make me pull the trigger. For me the biggest drawback was rather poor ICE MPG, especially highway. In my case I wanted a vehicle to not only replace one of my Leafs but also older 50 mpg Prius for our longer highway trips and in that case I'd want a vehicle that could get better than 30 mpg not plugging in. Another issue was it's relatively short EV range, I mean my Leaf has a short-range too but much better than mid-20s for EV range. Lastly the brand, I'm just not convinced the Mitsubishi is a reliable brand. I keep my vehicles for 10+ years and am just not sold a Mitsubishi would make that mark without having too many issues. Both my '04 Scion and our '07 Prius have had very little issues which is why I put down a deposit on a Toyota that can get ~40 miles EV and ~40 mpg on the highway. Unfortunately lots of others must feel as I do as the waiting list was 2+ years, until then we'll get by with 2 cars and pay for 2 sets of tabs and 2 insurance policies, looking forward to the Rav4 Prime.
 
GRA said:
If the cars were simply too expensive to compete and didn't provide any perceived advantage to more than a tiny niche of buyers at the time, which was arguably the case, then it was too early to try and we should have done something else
Your thinking is magical. ALL tech starts out expensive and follows a price and improvement, typically 'S' curve. Your presumption that one can simply wait until the first EVs built to scale are $20k, GRA approved cars is ridiculous. Moreover, it is obvious that a desire to accelerate the transition happens during the early, flat part of the 'S' curve. When people are spending $80k+ on a car with a 10% gov push. Not later when they are spending $20k and demanding a 40% gov push.
 
Triggerhappy007 said:
GRA said:
I've said before that if an AWD PHEV CUV with a smallish battery pack had been available in 2016 or 17, I would have gone for it despite my wanting to go full ZEV. But neither GM or anyone else built that car.
Mitsubishi did, the Outlander PHEV. It had been out since 2013 and the US got it in 2017.


Unfortunately, the Outlander was big and clumsy, and got the same or worse HWY mpg as my current car. Since I don't commute by car an Outlander would have cost me a few tens of thousands for essentially no efficiency improvement over my current car, and 20 miles of rarely used AER. That failed the value for money test by miles.

In order to be worth the switch, a PHEV needed to get about 40 mpg HWY for me.

Edit. I see jjeff and I had similar issues with the Outlander, and made similar decisions.
 
SageBrush said:
GRA said:
If the cars were simply too expensive to compete and didn't provide any perceived advantage to more than a tiny niche of buyers at the time, which was arguably the case, then it was too early to try and we should have done something else
Your thinking is magical. ALL tech starts out expensive and follows a price and improvement, typically 'S' curve. Your presumption that one can simply wait until the first EVs built to scale are $20k, GRA approved cars is ridiculous. Moreover, it is obvious that a desire to accelerate the transition happens during the early, flat part of the 'S' curve. When people are spending $80k+ on a car with a 10% gov push. Not later when they are spending $20k and demanding a 40% gov push.


Of course they start out expensive - all new high-tech does. But if it meets a large enough demand people will buy it without subsidies, and the price will drop over time. With gas prices where they were in 2010-2012, it's arguable that there simply was no demand beyond the wealthy for PEVs, so incentivising HEVs or some other field might have made more sense. Do you think we should have gicmven subsidies to the well-off to lease EV1s, despite them having no prospect of ever being mass market without far better batteries?

Here's the thing. Should we give welfare to the well-off, or those who are struggling with the necessities? Who benefits more for the same amount of money spent?

We know from the stimulus checks that the better-off put them into savings or invested them while those at the lower end paid rent, bought food, paid utility and medical bills etc. There was also a $75k single person income cap for the first round. If providing subsidies for non-essentials for the wealthy is appropriate, as you seem to believe, then instead of an income cap there should have been an income floor. If he'd gotten divorced last year, I'm sure that extra $3,200 would have made a HUGE difference to Bill Gates.
 
GRA said:
Here's the thing. Should we give welfare to the well-off, or those who are struggling with the necessities? Who benefits more for the same amount of money spent?

Development of new technology isn't welfare.
 
WetEV said:
GRA said:
Here's the thing. Should we give welfare to the well-off, or those who are struggling with the necessities? Who benefits more for the same amount of money spent?

Development of new technology isn't welfare.


That's not what we're talking about I have no problem with subsidising RD&D, and even giving a manufacturer a little help getting started, ala' Tesla's loan for Fremont.

In this case, though, it's subsidising inessential technology that fell into the "toys for the well-off" category. With the 2022 Bolt's price drop, we are just now getting into the era when BEVs start to have the necessary price and performance to be practical for a broad spectrum of buyers, and we're still lacking the needed infrastructure.
The next step on the way to mass market practicality (assuming the necessary charging infrastructure) will be 300 miles for $30k, with a full selection of models. Beyond that, 400 miles for $25k.

Personally, I've come to the conclusion that a BEV with an acceptable sacrifice of convenience for road trips will need an 800V or more pack, so I'll definitely be paying attention to the Ionic5/EV6, although they're both a bit too long and probably lack the range I want, as well as likely too pricey.

Once solid-state packs arrive and get into mass production, it will likely just be price that needs improvement. I'm hopeful that one way or another we'll get where we need to be by 2030.
 
GRA said:
Personally, I've come to the conclusion that a BEV with an acceptable sacrifice of convenience for road trips will need an 800V or more pack,
Which just goes to show you understand the determinants of EV charging time about as well as you understand the price curve of new technology.
 
GRA said:
WetEV said:
Development of new technology isn't welfare.
That's not what we're talking about

Development of new technologies is what I am talking about. What are you talking about?


GRA said:
In this case, though, it's subsidising inessential technology that fell into the "toys for the well-off" category. With the 2022 Bolt's price drop, we are just now getting into the era when BEVs start to have the necessary price and performance to be practical for a broad spectrum of buyers, and we're still lacking the needed infrastructure.

Exactly how does the cost (and the price) drop?

(edit typo)
 
Once solid-state packs arrive and get into mass production, it will likely just be price that needs improvement.

Just beginning to hear about these: capacitor batteries? what are they made of, and what will be the limitations?
 
dmacarthur said:
Once solid-state packs arrive and get into mass production, it will likely just be price that needs improvement.

Just beginning to hear about these: capacitor batteries? what are they made of, and what will be the limitations?

https://insideevs.com/news/438664/solid-power-all-solid-state-batteries-2021/

Looks very promising, but isn't yet proven technology.
 
SageBrush said:
GRA said:
Personally, I've come to the conclusion that a BEV with an acceptable sacrifice of convenience for road trips will need an 800V or more pack,
Which just goes to show you understand the determinants of EV charging time about as well as you understand the price curve of new technology.


Why, thank you, I agree. Since any given battery cell can only take so much charging current, reducing the charging time for the pack as a whole requires higher voltage. In order to be seen as a reasonable replacement by most people for liquid fuels, I think the 20-80% charge time has to be no more than 20 minutes, but preferably 10 minutes or less (with adequate range also). To eliminate virtually all extra time spent charging we want to get the 0-100% charge time down to that level, with a battery that can take that without degradation.


https://www.reddit.com/r/teslamotor...kw_vs_150kw_vs_120kw_charging_curves_model_3/

https://insideevs-com.cdn.ampprojec...503522/hyundai-ioniq5-fast-charging-analysis/
 
WetEV said:
GRA said:
WetEV said:
Development of new technology isn't welfare.
That's not what we're talking about

Development of new technologies is what I am talking about. What are you talking about?


I answered that in the very next paragraph you quoted.


WetEV said:
GRA said:
In this case, though, it's subsidising inessential technology that fell into the "toys for the well-off" category. With the 2022 Bolt's price drop, we are just now getting into the era when BEVs start to have the necessary price and performance to be practical for a broad spectrum of buyers, and we're still lacking the needed infrastructure.

Exactly how does the cost (and the price) drop?

(edit typo)


Do you think battery development would have stopped, given all the other things we use them for? Of course not. Prices would be higher now, but then that would cause us to use them more judiciously, in HEVs/PHEVs. We're trying to reduce emissions as much as possible. If we had achieved the same take rate by now for HEVs + PHEVs as Europe has just for the former, we'd have reduced GHG emissions by a far greater amount that trying to push BEVs on a so far mainly uninterested public. That necessarily assumes that we'd have put effective incentives in place to get more people to switch voluntarily, primarily but not solely higher fuel prices.
 
GRA said:
Do you think battery development would have stopped, given all the other things we use them for? Of course not.

Stopped? Probably not. Slowed? Of course.

So why again, just how would slowing battery development be a good thing? I'm not following that.
 
WetEV said:
GRA said:
Do you think battery development would have stopped, given all the other things we use them for? Of course not.

Stopped? Probably not. Slowed? Of course.

So why again, just how would slowing battery development be a good thing? I'm not following that.

Yes, it would have slowed, so we could have spent the money more carefully. There's lots of different ways to reduce GHGs; pushing BEVs ahead of their time probably wasn't the least costly way to achieve a given reduction..
 
GRA said:
WetEV said:
GRA said:
Do you think battery development would have stopped, given all the other things we use them for? Of course not.

Stopped? Probably not. Slowed? Of course.

So why again, just how would slowing battery development be a good thing? I'm not following that.

Yes, it would have slowed, so we could have spent the money more carefully. There's lots of different ways to reduce GHGs; pushing BEVs ahead of their time probably wasn't the least costly way to achieve a given reduction..

I doubt it. That we would have spent the money more carefully. The big difference between could and would.

Every process takes time. Henry Ford was able to make the Model T a cheap success because of the expensive cars that came before it.
 
GRA said:
In order to be seen as a reasonable replacement by most people for liquid fuels, I think the 20-80% charge time has to be no more than 20 minutes, but preferably 10 minutes or less (with adequate range also). To eliminate virtually all extra time spent charging we want to get the 0-100% charge time down to that level, with a battery that can take that without degradation.

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.
 
The only bottom-up approach I can think of from a car manufacturer is GM with the moderately expensive Bolt, and that has been a failure. Even GM seems to realize it since they are pivoting to their luxury Cadillac line for electrification. GRA may get to see the effect of subsidy on expensive cars if the federal tax credit returns to GM.

In any case though, the GRA argument that subsidies of expensive cars do not increase sales is transparently wrong. Both GM in the case of the Bolt, and Tesla for all its cars, reduced prices when the tax credit lapsed. Meaning that manufacturers set prices that take tax credits into account: msrp is higher when credits are available, and lower when they are not. One can question whether sending additional revenue to manufacturers accelerates the transition but it would be a short discussion.

If the price did not affect sales then manufacturers of every luxry car would simply raise the price to pad profits. Why does GM sell a luxury ICE truck for $70k rather than $80k ? Why not $90k ? The short answer is that 'rich' people, while able to 'afford' spending more, seek to maximize value -- just like everybody else.
 
SageBrush said:
The only bottom-up approach I can think of from a car manufacturer is GM with the moderately expensive Bolt, and that has been a failure.
Failure is too strong of word. Bolt is outselling all of the Cadillac models other than the Escalade.
 
WetEV said:
SageBrush said:
The only bottom-up approach I can think of from a car manufacturer is GM with the moderately expensive Bolt, and that has been a failure.
Failure is too strong of word.
Failure, as in unprofitable to GM at market prices and therefore relegated to compliance car status.
 
Back
Top