# Perhaps most EVs ARE just compliance cars....



## woodgeek (Nov 12, 2016)

In a recent thread, I got into a OT discussion with @peakbagger about EVs in which he asserted that EVs are all really just compliance cars sold because of state of California CARB mandates.  I was dismissive, but recent events lead me to a 'mea culpa'.

I was swayed by the sheer volume of sales of EVs in the US (inside and outside CA) and around the world.  The number of models and planned models (over the next few years) seemed large (>25) and the number of makers selling plug-ins were basically all of them.  Sales growth has been robust in the US (breaking 1% of light duty sales, 1.5% of 'cars') and globally (30% yoy growth in EU, >100% yoy growth in China), etc.

@peakbagger told me that they were all 'compliance cars', built in low volumes, perhaps at a loss (esp when engineering costs are included), to be sold in CA (and other incentive markets overseas) to avoid FINES or the need to buy expensive CREDITS for non-compliance with the CA mandate for zero emission vehicles, ZEVs. (He also argues that Tesla is propped up by that same credit market, a topic for another day).

Looks like he is more right than I gave him credit for.

48 hours after the recent election the 'auto alliance', a lobbying group for the major car makers wrote a letter to the President-Elect that makes it clear that they would like the CARB ZEV mandate rules either unmade, or its regulatory costs to the makers be acknowledged in other ways during rule making.  There is no discussion of EV costs falling exponentially, but rather of the threat that building ZEVs and CAFE-regulation cars will make all cars prohibitively expensive for the average American car buyer.  Talk about taking away the Apple Pie!

The Letter is Here: http://www.autonews.com/assets/PDF/CA1078111110.PDF

The signatories are basically ALL the makers except Tesla and NIssan, which are coincidentally the only ones trying to sell EVs in all states and countries.

Conclusion: the GM Volt, the coming GM Bolt (with a 240 mile range), those cute little carbon fiber BMW i3's that are selling like hotcakes....their makers would be just as happy if they could just shut down those lines and quit making 'em.

My Nissan LEAF EV lease is up in May 2017, and I was thinking of getting a Bolt. Now, no way.  I think I will go for another Nissan product (being too cheap to get a Tesla).  The remaining question is whether I want to get a new lease before January (with the existing $7500 fed incentive) and buy out the last 6 mos of my current lease (prob $1000), or risk re-leasing in May, perhaps with the Fed incentive scrapped.

Other coverage of Letter:
http://www.autonews.com/article/201...ut-to-trump-on-regulation-seek-review-of-fuel

http://insideevs.com/automakers-ask-trump-to-ease-emissions-rules-ev-mandates-get-ready-for-a-war/

Discuss!

One question...can the EV genie be put back in the bottle?


----------



## Lake Girl (Nov 12, 2016)

The EV issues bear watching ... as do all the EPA regs as that will likely be the next area looked at.  I heard the mention of farm fertilizers ... noted due to the algae bloom on the west end of Lake Erie which puts fish stocks at risk (purportedly caused by high phosphorus due to fertilizers)  .  http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/algae-lake-erie-michigan-1.3846249 Not sure what effect it has on human health.  A concern as I have family in the Windsor/Detroit area.  It sounds like the EV and other decisions may become more personal choice and cost/benefit analysis in the future.  

I would suspect that federal incentives may dry up quickly just based on statements to date but you never know as there seems to be subtle shifts in thought going on.  You've got a little time to see what may be coming but keep your eye on the dead-lines.


----------



## williaty (Nov 12, 2016)

The other way to look at the letter is that the signatories represent everyone who doesn't actually want to be in the EV business because it represents a threat to their existing ICE business.


----------



## woodgeek (Nov 12, 2016)

williaty said:


> The other way to look at the letter is that the signatories represent everyone who doesn't actually want to be in the EV business because it represents a threat to their existing ICE business.



Sure.  The thing that threw me is that these same companies happily turned out PR materials about how their EVs were so great, how they were the future, etc, and actually did the hard, expensive work of engineering them and making them.   Of course, in the earlier environment that can be good business, even if they don't _want_ to make or sell EVs.


----------



## blades (Nov 12, 2016)

You will notice that that area on the west coast screaming the loudest doesn't have a battery construction plant located there, hmmmmm............. among a host of other little details.  Another small problem is than the infrastructure in the electric department is woefully unprepared to handle the extra strain. That west coast area with the big mouth already has problems in that arena.


----------



## woodgeek (Nov 12, 2016)

blades said:


> You will notice that that area on the west coast screaming the loudest doesn't have a battery construction plant located there, hmmmmm............. among a host of other little details.  Another small problem is than the infrastructure in the electric department is woefully unprepared to handle the extra strain. That west coast area with the big mouth already has problems in that arena.



Not sure who you are referring to @blades. 

In a similar vein, I have always been amused by the Tesla fanboys that act like theirs is the ONLY EV maker (when both Nissan and GM were outselling them, the former in 'pure' EVs) for many years in a row.  At this point, their opinion appears a bit more accurate....that the other makers have no interest in making EVs. 

That said, the $7500 rebate on a Tesla is a much smaller percentage than it is on any of the other vehicles, and was set to run out in a year or two (when they get to 200k US sales), and yet the other _luxury_ makers are seeing Tesla actually taking a measurable fraction of their market share.  I don't see how DT changes that market dynamics short of banning EVs.

And the infrastructure is not much of an issue for existing vehicles...I charge my commuter at home, and Teslas can be charged at home and supercharged on many roadtrip routes.


----------



## DBoon (Nov 12, 2016)

I would expect incentives to go away rather quickly, but I would not expect automakers to discontinue their investments in EVs.  Tesla has already proved that there is a market for a well-made EV, and the market will not collapse entirely without the incentives.  Electric propulsion is a real threat to the ICE, and the major car makers do business outside of the US where nothing will be changing.  If GM or Ford, for instance, gave up on all electric vehicle research, then they might as well just become a truck maker - that's not a really good idea long-term.  

But if you can ask for and get a release from all regulations, and you think that there is no downside, why not do that?  The auto makers aren't the brightest bunch in the world when it comes to common-sense PR, with Toyota, GM, and VW being good recent examples.


----------



## Lake Girl (Nov 12, 2016)

Some positive changes require a shift in attitude and a slightly different manufacturing process and are often met with great resistance as it cuts into the bottom line.  I don't see a problem with reducing or eliminating certain problem factors ... VOCs for one.  I think CA lead the charge on that too.  Less harmful products have evolved.  Guess I have a slightly different perspective though as I lived about a 1/2 hour drive from Love Canal were Hooker Chemical failed to meet environmental obligations and reeked havoc on people's lives and health. 

blades, Nevada's not close enough?  https://electrek.co/2016/07/27/tesla-gigafactory-july-2016-new-aerial-pictures-gallery/


----------



## begreen (Nov 13, 2016)

I fear that the US is about to undergo a complete about face on climate change. We are about to enter a period of damn the torpedos and full oil & coal ahead. The new admininster also wants to get rid of wind power, thinks they're ugly. This not only condemns the next generation, it drops America behind in development of alternative technologies. Let's hope that Musk and others can prevail as a counterpoint.


----------



## woodgeek (Nov 14, 2016)

While I largely agree BG, I have to say that we have had 8 years of 'all of the above' energy plans (the most popular politically, of course), and it is possible that we will keep 'all of the above' and the only thing that really changes is the lip-service.  While I think DT will downtalk COP21, and undo the CPP, and that is bad enough, its not clear that we will happily take business from heavy manufacturers in the midwest (i.e. those making wind turbine towers).  I suspect COP21 will limp forward without US leadership.  In the US, a lot of climate goals will be made at the state and city level, lots of populous cities and population in blue areas.

And of course, one wonders how he will fix coal.  Given global trends, which private investor is going to invest in a coal project that will take 30 years to pay off, even if the CPP is gone? At the simplest level, can't we assume that the pendulum will swing back to coal regulation in 8 years plus or minus?  Moreover, coal investors **are aware** that the coal bust of the last 3-4 years is not due to Obama (since the CPP was never put into action, just started planning), but rather to the steep dropoff in Chinese demand for met coal for steel.

The wind and solar incentives are already on a taper to zero over the next few years....he might not really prioritize an earlier phase out that goes after money making vested interests and politically popular programs (RE remains VERY popular with Americans of all political stripes, lots of wind power in red states).


----------



## Lake Girl (Nov 14, 2016)

While there are federal regulations that may disappear, I tend to agree with woodgeek on the state regs holding the line ... if they have regs in place.  Incentives may dry up, maybe not if they are supported by US based manufacturing.  Not sure how much change there will actually be to trade agreements if it supports US industry/manufacturing interests.  It's going to be an interesting ride...


----------



## begreen (Nov 14, 2016)

woodgeek said:


> While I largely agree BG, I have to say that we have had 8 years of 'all of the above' energy plans (the most popular politically, of course), and it is possible that we will keep 'all of the above' and the only thing that really changes is the lip-service.  While I think DT will downtalk COP21, and undo the CPP, and that is bad enough, its not clear that we will happily take business from heavy manufacturers in the midwest (i.e. those making wind turbine towers).  I suspect COP21 will limp forward without US leadership.  In the US, a lot of climate goals will be made at the state and city level, lots of populous cities and population in blue areas.
> 
> And of course, one wonders how he will fix coal.  Given global trends, which private investor is going to invest in a coal project that will take 30 years to pay off, even if the CPP is gone? At the simplest level, can't we assume that the pendulum will swing back to coal regulation in 8 years plus or minus?  Moreover, coal investors **are aware** that the coal bust of the last 3-4 years is not due to Obama (since the CPP was never put into action, just started planning), but rather to the steep dropoff in Chinese demand for met coal for steel.
> 
> The wind and solar incentives are already on a taper to zero over the next few years....he might not really prioritize an earlier phase out that goes after money making vested interests and politically popular programs (RE remains VERY popular with Americans of all political stripes, lots of wind power in red states).


Good points. It's unknown what infrastructure will be invested in. Did you note who is being considered to be appointed as head of the Dept. of Energy? That might be an indication.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/oil-billionaire-considered-lead-energy-department/


----------



## williaty (Nov 14, 2016)

Speaking of appointments, I do find it interesting that he pledged to drain the swamp and, before he's even taken office, has appointed a geoengineering company staffed by alligators and other denizens of the Everglades to do the work.


----------



## begreen (Nov 14, 2016)




----------



## vinny11950 (Nov 14, 2016)

Well, at least wind energy will be somewhat safe because Chuck Grassley is a big proponent of it because his state benefits greatly from it.

http://thehill.com/policy/energy-en...ump-will-attack-wind-energy-over-my-dead-body

As for everything else, good luck.

If they appoint oil and gas people to run the key energy positions, then you know it will be fossil fuels full speed ahead.  And if it is that, then expect oil prices to rise somehow.  At these levels, the oil industry is not making enough money to warrant investing in more drilling capacity unless they think prices will go up.  That would be the early indicator of where prices are headed to.

Killing efficiency and conservation programs seems to me to be a good beginning to start driving up oil prices.  So forget about the Weatherization Program at DOE.  CAFE standards are going to be rolled back, SUVs (which are already selling in greater numbers because of low gasoline prices) will probably sell even more, especially if they create a tax credit for buying one like they did in the early 2000s.  And I don't put it past them to hinder Tesla with grid fees and additional taxes just to slow their distribution system and eventually put them out of business.  And don't forget SpaceX gets NASA contracts for rocket launches - those contracts could be taken away just to put Musk in greater difficulty.

Finally, a little conflict in the Middle East to one of the big oil producing countries will go a long way to reintroduce the war premium in oil prices (which during the Bush years was estimated to be $10-$20 a barrel, if I remember correctly).  Sorry to be so cynical, but I have seen this movie before.


----------



## williaty (Nov 14, 2016)

The problem with trying to raise oil prices is they're very likely to find that they can't. The price of oil, ultimately, is based off the financial ability of the middle and lower classes to afford to buy things made from, transported by, and powered by that oil. The purchasing power of the lower and middle class is down significantly in inflation-adjusted dollars. The sources of debt (which are what enabled the pre-2007 run-up in oil prices), which can mask reduced real income for a time, are mostly used up. If the energy companies do something to raise the price of oil, they're going to soon learn that most of us can't afford the new prices and instead react by consuming less. In fact, that's already been a clear cyclical trend since 2007. Oil prices rise slightly, purchasing drops slightly, oil prices drop slightly. Rinse and repeat.

Fundamentally, oil prices can't again rise to the point that we saw pre-2007 because the middle and lower classes are unable to afford the increases off their incomes and there's insufficient available debt to hide that fact.


----------



## vinny11950 (Nov 14, 2016)

Gasoline prices don't have much elasticity.  If you need to get somewhere, say work, and your only option is your car, then you have to use the car. 

http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=19191

I agree with your premise that debt has helped households hide their loss of earning and purchasing powers, but there is plenty of room for oil prices to double from where they are now, and the economy could easily support those prices.  People just adjust around it and spend more money on energy by sacrificing somewhere else.

Again, I find it hard to believe that the oil people advising DT are going to pump more and bring oil prices down to hurt their own business.


----------



## williaty (Nov 14, 2016)

Yeah the way we've built the US pretty much means that if you want a job and to be able to get the the grocery store, you have to own a car. However, if the price of oil rises, the inelastic portion of your consumption grows to be a larger portion of your income. If gas prices go up, your spending on things like clothing, household goods, and other things (even energy to heat the house) must go down. All of those things factor in to the demand for (and therefore price of) oil because they're made of oil byproducts and transported from the sweatshop to your door using oil based fuels.


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Nov 15, 2016)

interesting little ditty from NYT, "
In a startling study published in February, researchers at Carnegie Mellon found that those incentives meant that each time an electric vehicle or other green car was sold in place of a conventional vehicle, fleet carbon dioxide emissions increased by as much as 60 tons and gasoline consumption increased by as much as 7,000 gallons a year.

The E.P.A. has said it thinks this trade-off is worthwhile, because green car sales could lay the foundation for a bigger switch to electric vehicles. But a relaxing of fuel emissions standards could derail that assumption.

Jeremy Michalek, a professor in the Department of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie Mellon, said that putting a price on carbon in the form of a carbon tax would be a simpler and more effective way to pursue fuel efficiency in the nation’s vehicles."  link
https://t.co/cVvZHxnMXN
is this another might be, maybe, what if ?


----------



## vinny11950 (Nov 15, 2016)

Doug MacIVER said:


> In a startling study published in February,



Doug, if you are going to provide a link to a pay wall article, you should at least explain the findings of that study or post a link to another article that explains it.  Sorry to sound harsh, but I hate pay walls.

http://www.cmu.edu/news/stories/archives/2016/march/federal-policy-afvs.html

http://phys.org/news/2016-03-federal-policy-reverses-benefits-alternative.html

The issue is not that AFV burn more fuel, but that under the current CAFE standards scheme, it allows the manufacturer to offset the sale of a AFV with the sale of higher gasoline consuming vehicle.  This sounds stupind until you realize that people hate the idea of a carbon tax, even one that is revenue neutral.  So this convoluted CAFE scheme tries to work around that reality, while trying to get the EV market going.


----------



## Doug MacIVER (Nov 15, 2016)

https://t.co/cVvZHxnMXN ev nyt article comes through on my comp.


----------



## vinny11950 (Nov 15, 2016)

Ah, I see now your original link was mixed up and leads to an ACS publications page.  While you meant to link to NYT.  Thanks for posting the correct link now.


----------



## vinny11950 (Nov 16, 2016)

Sweet.

http://www.motortrend.com/news/chevrolet-bolt-ev-2017-car-of-the-year/


----------



## begreen (Nov 16, 2016)

Fortune is suggesting that the best way may be green.
http://fortune.com/2016/11/16/donald-trump-energy-iea-oil/


----------



## Lake Girl (Nov 16, 2016)

I thought the goal was a free for all in US oil, gas, coal production as stocks in environmentally protected areas would become fair game.  I hope not but do recall reading something along that line...

Alberta has a bit of a mess on it's hands.  Farmers, by legislation, have to lease their lands for oil/gas production.  With the downturn, many companies have walked away leaving unpaid electric bills.  They were relying on the rule that they could charge the land owner for unpaid bills.  That rule was supposed to apply to residential units ... not commercial oil/gas operations that need phase 3.  Province is supposed to step in with unpaid land lease payments to help farmers recover them or pay them outright.  Unpaid utilities may be the next in line  My question would also be who covers clean-up and capping?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/farmers-insolvent-energy-company-power-bills-1.3850204


----------



## begreen (Nov 16, 2016)

Lake Girl said:


> Alberta has a bit of a mess on it's hands. Farmers, by legislation, have to lease their lands for oil/gas production. With the downturn, many companies have walked away leaving unpaid electric bills. They were relying on the rule that they could charge the land owner for unpaid bills. That rule was supposed to apply to residential units ... not commercial oil/gas operations that need phase 3. Province is supposed to step in with unpaid land lease payments to help farmers recover them or pay them outright. Unpaid utilities may be the next in line My question would also be who covers clean-up and capping?


If it's like the US often the answer is 'we the people'.


----------



## Lake Girl (Nov 16, 2016)

That seems to be the same here but it would be provincial level ... provinces control natural resources ... minerals, water, tree harvest.


----------



## peakbagger (Nov 18, 2016)

Interesting discussion that I appear to have stirred up.

Incentives are good to "prime the pump", new technology generally gets adopted faster when there are short term incentives put in place to encourage high volume manufacture to drive prices down, it has worked spectacularly well for PV and may sometime work for EV. The differences to me is that the PV effort led to it being essentially transparent to the typical user . In the case of PV, once the initial thrill of putting shiny things on the roof, there is zero impact to the typical homeowner except for financial. The bill payer in the household may notice but the rest of the residents don't have to alter their lifestyle. Unlike an off grid install, they don't have to change their lifestyle to adjust to PV and that's why PV is going mainstream.

I don't find that is the case yet with EVs and until the range issue goes away EVs require lifestyle changes that a typical user is not willing to adopt. No doubt there are plenty of early adopters who take pride in that lifestyle change but in order to mainstream the technology so there are large scale environmental benefits, the average user need to get on the bandwagon. To date priming the pump can drive the EV cost down but barring the replaceable battery concept that failed miserably in Israel and Tesla's abandonment of the concept, having a EV in the garage requires extra effort and planning than an ICE. This has been somewhat supported by reports I have seen that many of the corporate off lease hybrids (Volts) have minimal battery hours on them despite high mileage. No doubt many Volt folks take great pride in avoiding adding gas but I expect the business users are probably more of a typical user, when they hop in the car from the motor pool, they want to get on the road and when they get back they want to go home and don't want to fuss with finding a space to plug in or even spend the time to actually plug it in.  Fundamentally an EV requires preplanning to ensure that the battery has adequate charge to cover the intended trip and that requires plugging it in in advance. I accept that there are EV folks who regard this as acceptable but I argue that to a typical ICE owner this is an imposition especially when the vehicle is used by multiple users. Stereotypically in a typical household the standard refrain is "some other family member used the car and didn't fill it up". This usually happens when someone else needs the car right now. Granted with a suitable electrical service to support a fast charger, the batteries can be fast charged in some period of time but with an ICE unless its bone dry its just a quick trip to gas pump.

My contention is the average driver is unwilling to put up with the extra hassle barring a significant increase in energy costs to the point where it impacts disposable income. It has happened in the past, but the current predictions are that fuel costs are going to remain low. Thus the need for external drivers to encourage EV use. A carbon tax could do that but given the recent election results, a carbon tax is highly doubtful anytime soon. The alternative is the CA approach, drive it from the supply side by forcing car manufacturers to subsidize EVs until someone will buy them at the discounted price. Thus the compliance car was born and barring major market changes I expect they will remain. I have no doubt there always will be folks who will buy EVs if they available and are gladly willing to accept what to them is a trivial lifestyle change. I just believe that market penetration will remain so low that any environmental benefits will remain lo.


----------



## woodgeek (Nov 18, 2016)

That said, EVs are contagious.  We got one, and lo and behold in the last couple years three other families we know got one too.  Of course, they are all two-car families with one long commuter, so with the miles logged it is quite affordable.  And in those EV families, like mine, the two drivers fight over who gets to drive the 'good car', i.e. the EV.

The charging has been a convenient non-issue, car is just plugged in in the garage at night.  Not really different than your phone...just plug it in at the end of the day, or maybe before that if you used it a lot.

Peakbagger is reading a lot into reports from some fleet users, where who knows what the mgmt expectations or policies were?

While I may concede the point that the makers are not really excited about the prospect of making long-range EVs, due to reduced profits or whatever, there are _plenty_ of people that are happy to drive them given the chance.  As range improves and cost decreases, that fraction will expand. 

People are naturally a little reticent with new tech for a big-ticket item.  My dad always asks about the car...he's supportive but I think he expects the wheels to fall off at some point, or maybe for the squirrel under the hood to expire, I dunno.  But your neighbors see you driving the thing in all weather for a couple years...they figure its a car.


----------



## peakbagger (Nov 19, 2016)

_Peakbagger is reading a lot into reports from some fleet users, where who knows what the mgmt expectations or policies were?
_
The reports are not from fleet users, its from used vehicle auctions commenting on the low prices used EVs get.. Take a look at Ebay on used EV prices using the option for transactions that actually were completed versus what people are asking, you will see that the prices are quite low compared to the original cost of the cars.  I have know of one EV user that bought one who was quite distressed when his job changed and needed to trade in his now used EV to the dealer he bought it from in less than two years and the trade in offered was about a 1/3 of what he paid for it. The local large Chevy dealer near me will only special order Volts as they have been stuck with too many on the lot, that end up getting cleared out at a loss.

I understand that you are 100% advocate of the technology and want to spread your zeal to others, my point is that EVs are still in the early adoption phase where they are being bought by those willing to put up with still significant limitations that would preclude their purchase by the general population.


----------



## williaty (Nov 19, 2016)

The low used price of EVs represents the significant uncertainty in the ongoing cost of maintenance as much as anything else. Right now, there's not a near-100-year history of what they're like to maintain once the warranty expires or they come off lease. People are worried about just how much replacement battery packs are going to cost plus just how often new packs are going to be needed. On top of that, it doesn't help the used market at all that the technology is advancing so fast. When you come off your 2 or 3 year lease and have the option of buying the car, it seems pretty stupid to spend a considerable amount of money to buy the one you have already when the current year's model is better in every meaningful way.

Used prices will come up as the maintenance questions resolve and as the rate of improvement slows (making used cars more similar in performance to the newest cars).


----------



## begreen (Nov 19, 2016)

woodgeek said:


> That said, EVs are contagious.  We got one, and lo and behold in the last couple years three other families we know got one too.  Of course, they are all two-car families with one long commuter, so with the miles logged it is quite affordable.  And in those EV families, like mine, the two drivers fight over who gets to drive the 'good car', i.e. the EV.
> 
> People are naturally a little reticent with new tech for a big-ticket item.  My dad always asks about the car...he's supportive but I think he expects the wheels to fall off at some point, or maybe for the squirrel under the hood to expire, I dunno.  But your neighbors see you driving the thing in all weather for a couple years...they figure its a car.


I was surprised when my sister-in-law visited at how enthusiastic she was over the Volt. She is a firm BMW owner but actually got the fun factor of driving the Volt.

FWIW, GM reports that so far Volt battery replacements are very rare. These paks are conservatively designed and only a portion of the capacity is exercised so that it can't be drained too low.


----------



## woodgeek (Nov 20, 2016)

peakbagger said:


> The reports are not from fleet users, its from used vehicle auctions commenting on the low prices used EVs get.. Take a look at Ebay on used EV prices using the option for transactions that actually were completed versus what people are asking, you will see that the prices are quite low compared to the original cost of the cars.  I have know of one EV user that bought one who was quite distressed when his job changed and needed to trade in his now used EV to the dealer he bought it from in less than two years and the trade in offered was about a 1/3 of what he paid for it. The local large Chevy dealer near me will only special order Volts as they have been stuck with too many on the lot, that end up getting cleared out at a loss.
> 
> I understand that you are 100% advocate of the technology and want to spread your zeal to others, my point is that EVs are still in the early adoption phase where they are being bought by those willing to put up with still significant limitations that would preclude their purchase by the general population.



Sure.  The resale on EVs is terrible compared to ICE cars.  The former is a rapidly evolving technology, where products are getting better and cheaper (relative to performance) at a rapid clip, the latter is a mature or post-mature technology, where the prices have been climbing steadily for years (along with complexity) creating a significant food-chain and demand for affordable used cars.  That is why most folks LEASE their EVs, and don't buy them.  Add to this the fact that the first 40k LEAFs sold in the US had cr@p batteries because corporate forced engineering into early release....and those cars are now nearly worthless.

I won't deny my zealousness...or the fact that existing (or near future) battery EVs do not fit the use model of many American car drivers. 

I think strong hybrids like the Prius are struggling due to low gas prices (you need a LOT of miles, more than an average commute, to make up the upfront cost).  Plug-in hybrids also have a high upfront cost because of their complex, ICE drivetrains, and the cost saving from electric miles make them only slightly more favorable than a Prius at current gas prices.  I think both are and will continue to struggle on a 'cost/complexity' basis despite being useable for 100% of driver's use cases. 

But battery EVs are another story entirely.  The limited (~100 mile) 'no-wait' range make the car fine for nearly all commuters, but lousy for road-trips. Fortunately, there are a LOT of single commuter families and most of those commute <40 miles/day and already own 2+ cars.  Think about how many families like that you know.  Is it 3% of families, or 30%?  For these families the lack of an ICE drivetrain reduces the upfront and maintenance costs of the car, significantly improving the economic analysis, even with cheap gas.

So, I claim that while 100% of drivers could us a plug-in hybrid or hybrid exclusively, most people don't want them based upon performance or cost.  The apparent ceiling on Prius sales would seem to agree with this.  But turning to battery EVs however, I claim that 30% of families have a perfect commuting use model  (owning a second larger car for roadtrips), and that such cars' sales ceiling is thus 15% of unit sales, if costs continue to fall and practical range does not increase.

I think BEV sales (about 0.7% of US light vehicle sales in 2016) are held back by fear and unfamiliarity, as with all new technology.  It's one thing to try something new when the investment is small (like a new kind of phone or appliance), but another thing entirely when its a big-ticket item that affects your ability to get to work.  I am not surprised that most people (sensibly skeptical of advertising, or having been burned by new tech before) won't consider a BEV until they see their neighbors or family members have an extended successful user experience.  But that is still compatible with every BEV sold selling three more after two years (my personal case), which is a 50% annual growth rate.

So 50% possible growth rate (realized in the US when gas was more expensive), combined with the 15% sale ceiling above means that BEVs could become a mainstream option in the US by 2020.  In locations with higher gas taxes (EU) or better incentives (China) annual sales growth rates have been 50-100% over the last year.


----------



## woodgeek (Nov 20, 2016)

A speculative recent article on energy policy from Bloomberg:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-11/tesla-s-future-in-trump-s-world

and MIT Tech Review:

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/602859/an-electric-car-future-needs-non-trumpian-policies/

of course, nobody knows nothin'


----------



## peakbagger (Nov 20, 2016)

Now that you have shifted the discussion to other than a primary vehicle market I do agree with you. I will buy the concept that for someone who has a primary vehicle and has use for a commuter car to commute within the range of BEV, a BEV is potentially an attractive option to an ICE car. Given the current pricing of new BEVs, I expect the economics would work better buying a used BEV to take advantage of the currently depressed BEV resale market.  Of course that presupposes that someone would initially buy the BEV new and take the depreciation hit.


----------



## woodgeek (Nov 20, 2016)

Sure, but getting to a theoretical 15% of sales (20x current) on the back of 'cheap second car econ' without long-range capability would be enough to fund the engineering and rollout of 200+ mile EVs that are cheaper than small ICE cars.   Then we get to the land of some additional people buying 200 mile EVs as primary cars just because they're cheaper, and either sucking up some manageable inconvenience on couple hundred mile trips, renting an ICE car, or taking the train/bus.



peakbagger said:


> Given the current pricing of new BEVs, I expect the economics would work better buying a used BEV to take advantage of the currently depressed BEV resale market.  Of course that presupposes that someone would initially buy the BEV new and take the depreciation hit.



Having looked at this, the lease options are quite attractive on the new units, often set to make the monthly nut comparable to a buying used with 4 year financing.  You also have to keep in mind that a lot of batteries have an 8-10 year 'shelf-life', and so if you buy an EV coming off a 3 year lease, and pay it off after 4 years, it might not have much remaining life (or function) left at that point.


----------



## TonyVideo (Mar 8, 2017)

Once an EV can get to that 400 mile range with AC or heat running then they will take off. Until then fear of running out and left stranded will prevail. Which reminds me of a pic of a Tesla in a restaurant parking lot being charged by a Honda EU2000i. Priceless. 

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk


----------



## woodgeek (Mar 8, 2017)

I think 200 miles real world range and as many quick chargers as we now have gas stations will also do nicely.

And before that a LOT of 2 car families will get a 100+ mile commuter car as their 'second' car.


----------



## spirilis (Jul 22, 2017)

woodgeek said:


> I think 200 miles real world range and as many quick chargers as we now have gas stations will also do nicely.
> 
> And before that a LOT of 2 car families will get a 100+ mile commuter car as their 'second' car.


Waking this thread up from the dead mostly to squee about my new purchase ... 2017 Ford Focus Electric, a compliance car if I've ever seen one.  Dealer had 4 in stock (most of any dealer in the Baltimore area) and really didn't have much practical experience about them.  It feels like it has a lot of gizmos for the price (which was quite lower than MSRP), HID headlights/standard navigation, remote telematics et al, somewhat generous warranties coming from the ICE world.

We're firmly in the "second car as 100+ mile commuter" territory, with my wife tending to agree that I should drive it (as I can manage the range anxiety better than her).

That said, anyone who's never test driven a hybrid, plug-in hybrid and especially BEV should try it sometime.  There's something immensely addicting about the high-torque nature of electric propulsion, along with the regenerative braking (e.g. how cruise control can maintain speed by using regen to brake).  It's definitely something to be excited about.


----------



## begreen (Jul 23, 2017)

Congratulations. EV driving can be fun!


----------



## WoodyIsGoody (Jul 23, 2017)

woodgeek said:


> The signatories are basically ALL the makers except Tesla and NIssan, which are coincidentally the only ones trying to sell EVs in all states and countries.



Your entire premise is wrong.

Tesla's Elon Musk also wrote his own detailed letter to the Feds requesting an end to electric vehicle subsidies:

http://www.businessinsider.com/elon...ric-car-subsidies-trump-administration-2017-2

He explains how the subsidies put Tesla at a competitive disadvantage and should be eliminated.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Jul 23, 2017)

Just read an article about 6 models GM is thinking of Ending and was surprised to see the VOLT in there!


----------



## BrotherBart (Jul 23, 2017)

Listening to the radio a few days ago and heard a news item about GM shutting down Volt production for a while because of slow sales. Then the next thing was a commercial for the Volt.


----------



## begreen (Jul 24, 2017)

Cheap gas will set us back many years. That said, Volt sales continue to rise. I keep telling GM to put an SUV topper on the Volt chassis. Word is the Volt may morph into a crossover vehicle. That would be a good plan if they keep the driving fun in the car while increasing passenger capacity.

http://www.autoblog.com/2016/06/01/chevy-volt-nissan-leaf-may-2016-sales/


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Jul 24, 2017)

Will be interesting to see how the BOLT does against the Leaf. Would seem a no brainer unless your a big nissan fan.  ID like to see the BOLT battery in an SUV.


----------



## woodgeek (Jul 24, 2017)

What I have read re Volt phase out is that it is part of a larger strategy to reduce sedan production....esp small sedan production, since sales of same are falling like a rock.

No reason the same drivetrain can't be used in a CUV.


----------



## woodgeek (Jul 24, 2017)

Seasoned Oak said:


> Will be interesting to see how the BOLT does against the Leaf. Would seem a no brainer unless your a big nissan fan.  ID like to see the BOLT battery is an SUV.



The outcome will depend on price and incentives.  Right now it looks like the LEAF Gen 2 will be cheaper than the Bolt MSRP, and the first release will have a smaller battery (although multiple battery options will likely be available later in different trims).

That said, Bolt leases have been coming in 50% more expensive than Gen 1 LEAF leases, which is a big ask for a vehicle that is still not great for long road trips, and has similar usability for commuting.  I am lined up for being a LEAF Gen 2 early adopter in 2018....and I am hoping for a lease rate well below that currently offered by GM.

To speculate a bit....I think the difference in incentives between what GM and NIssan is doing presumably has something to do with Nissan WANTING to sell more EVs than GM does.  Either b/c they want to grow the business more (e.g. the topic of this thread), or they have done a better job with cost containment, and are closer to profitability on each unit, or can project a near future profitable market than GM can.

GM certainly seems to be doing a slooow rollout on the Bolt. Maybe they are cautious with the tech in their first pure battery EV (BEV)....and they are watching their early sales data closely, lest they have to do a huge recall (like the Pacifica EV minivan).  Or maybe they are just cautious.  Or maybe they are not interested in selling a lot, and just want to have have the tech/data for insurance for an EV future that they are not sure will happen.

We'll see.

PS: Recent 'news' about cutting Bolt production is BS.  They are retooling the line to make *more* Bolts (and fewer Sonics, that share the same line).


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Jul 24, 2017)

The BOLT introdustion partly makes the Volt obsolete.  Im sure BOLT sales will eat into existing Volt sales when they go 50 states. Unless the VOLT is your only car. With 240 miles of range the need for a backup engine is greatly reduced


----------



## woodgeek (Jul 24, 2017)

Seasoned Oak said:


> The BOLT introdustion partly makes the Volt obsolete.  Im sure BOLT sales will eat into existing Volt sales when they go 50 states. Unless the VOLT is your only car. With 240 miles of range the need for a backup engine is greatly reduced



I am skeptical of this.  A BEV with 240 mile range is still a tough sell for anyone who ever wants to take a real roadtrip....assuming (current best) 50 kW CCS chargers are available en route, you still have to stop for 1 hour per 4 hours of driving (or 30 mins every 2, etc).  Most people will still prefer an ICE car (as I do) or a PHEV (as begreen) for that task.   So lots of single car people will still get the Volt or a different PHEV.  Because the bigger battery doesn't really help with the roadtrip problem....which is lost time.

The Bolt is a nice vehicle, its bigger than the Volt and seats 5 and has a lot of cargo space (its a mid-size hatch, like the LEAF).

That said, sales YTD are neck and neck between the Bolt and the OLD LEAF (about 7000 units each).  There are many factors...Bolt only avialable in limited markets (but with most EV -popular states) AND being the new hotness.  LEAF has been around for a long time AND may be suppressed by impending Gen 2 release.

And yet the old LEAF is keeping up with the Bolt??? Its about price!

Lots of leaks that the first release LEAF gen 2 will likely be 40 kWh/160 miles of range, versus Bolt's 60 kWh/240 mile range.

HERE: http://insideevs.com/next-gen-nissan-leaf-spotted-dash-displays-265-km165-miles-of-range/

If the 40 kWh LEAF costs 2/3rds as much as the 60 kWh Bolt, I think it will sell a LOT better.  Neither car is good for long road trips, both are equally good commuters and the same size/cargo.  And if GM wants another $1000-$1500/yr to lease the Bolt, why would I spend that to facilitate a couple short road trips, e.g. 150-200 miles???  I can still do those trips with the LEAF, and the Bolt might save me a couple charging stops?  For $1000??

At the current price point, the Model 3 will eat the Bolt's sales.  And the LEAF Gen 2 might reach a different (less spendy) segment.


----------



## sportbikerider78 (Jul 24, 2017)

begreen said:


> I fear that the US is about to undergo a complete about face on climate change. We are about to enter a period of damn the torpedos and full oil & coal ahead. The new admininster also wants to get rid of wind power, thinks they're ugly.



He has that in common with Ted Kennedy...who was all for alternative energy until they tried to ruin his view from his vacation home on the Cape with wind turbines.


----------



## woodgeek (Jul 24, 2017)

spirilis said:


> Waking this thread up from the dead mostly to squee about my new purchase ... 2017 Ford Focus Electric, a compliance car if I've ever seen one.  Dealer had 4 in stock (most of any dealer in the Baltimore area) and really didn't have much practical experience about them.  It feels like it has a lot of gizmos for the price (which was quite lower than MSRP), HID headlights/standard navigation, remote telematics et al, somewhat generous warranties coming from the ICE world.
> 
> We're firmly in the "second car as 100+ mile commuter" territory, with my wife tending to agree that I should drive it (as I can manage the range anxiety better than her).



You got me to look up the specs....the 'FFE' used to be disdained years ago by the EV crowd for low range and cargo space.

Looks like the 2017 is a nice refresh on the model, now with a 33 kWh battery and a 115 mi EPA (conservative) range and DC fast charging capability (CCS standard). All in all a much more capable vehicle than my 2013 LEAF S+QC (with 24 kWh and 85 mile EPA range).

http://blog.caranddriver.com/better...electric-gets-longer-range-and-fast-charging/

Please give us a report when you've tried it out a bit.  You bought rather than leased?


----------



## spirilis (Jul 25, 2017)

woodgeek said:


> You got me to look up the specs....the 'FFE' used to be disdained years ago by the EV crowd for low range and cargo space.
> 
> Looks like the 2017 is a nice refresh on the model, now with a 33 kWh battery and a 115 mi EPA (conservative) range and DC fast charging capability (CCS standard). All in all a much more capable vehicle than my 2013 LEAF S+QC (with 24 kWh and 85 mile EPA range).
> 
> ...


I did buy.  I do a lot of miles and have a habit of keeping cars 'til 200K... I'll admit keeping one of these to 200K is a bit risky, but with a liquid-cooled battery and DCFC I'm willing to give it a try.

The car's awesome.  My mileage appears to be about right on with what it's telling me, although I suppose I wouldn't know for sure until I drained it down to the SSN (Stop Safely Now) indicator.  After a day of driving it from ~120mi to ~19mi and tallying everything up, it's around 120 miles of range as expected (with occasional A/C usage and occasional >60MPH driving).

My L2 EVSE situation at home is a bit... temporary, using a Bosch Power Xpress and our dryer outlet at the moment.

The day I bought it, I did two DCFC's going to/from the dealer (wife wanted a proper test drive with kids in the car so we took it home on a loaner agreement, then I came back and finished the paperwork to purchase it).  The EVgo station was a bit of a ripoff ($9.95 flat fee), the Royal Farms (chargepoint $0.29/kwh) was more reasonable ... that was around $5.50.  Power at my house is ~$0.108/kwh which is where I'll get most of juice.

Today I'm doing a 101 total mile trip with no charging in between, just to get a feel for how comfortable I am with it.  There are at least 2 DCFC sites on the way home if the estimated mileage gets too close for comfort.


----------



## woodgeek (Jul 25, 2017)

I have to say that EVgo is a bit of a rip at $10 for 30 mins, but I love them.  Before they came along, I had 20-25 kW (max) DCFC chargers, all a couple miles off the highway, and not well spaced, and not near any amenities. 

EVgo is putting in 50 kW chargers in sensible locations (like every 50 miles on interstate rest areas) and major cities (like Brooklyn).  Basically, they make it possible for me to drive to NYC and back with two 30 min stops near amenities (and $20) versus FOUR 30-45 min stops in nowheresville (and still nearly $20).


----------



## spirilis (Jul 25, 2017)

Well this sucks, the Bosch EVSE took a dump.  Power light is on but status light is blank, and there's a buzzing sound.  Good thing I got it from amazon... returning it 

Ordered a JuiceBox 40A (non-pro or wifi) w/ overnight shipping (so Thursday).  I can deal with L1 for tonight (and bum a free 3kw charge at a grocery store near my workplace).  There's also a Royal Farms w/ CCS & CHAdeMO about 4mi from work.


----------



## begreen (Jul 26, 2017)

That's a bummer. We've had a Clipper Creek for 4 yrs service now with no issues.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Aug 30, 2017)

Bolts are available for lease but seem kind of steep. 4K down and $333 a month for a lo mile 36 mo lease. I probably would be way ahead with a good used Volt for 15K.   I need to lease to take advantage of the tax credit.


----------



## begreen (Aug 30, 2017)

That is a bit steep. Maybe wait and see what Nissan comes out with next month.


----------



## CaptSpiff (Aug 31, 2017)

Did Nissan just DROP THE MIC on the 2017 LEAF ?????

$10,000 off msrp rebate from Nissan, plus state, plus Fed credits???

Or is Nissan terrified of the 200+ range BOLT?

https://www.psegliny.com/page.cfm/EV/LEAF

I was looking at a 2013 Leaf at the dealer for $9K+.  Now I'm thinking $5K as an offer.


----------



## begreen (Aug 31, 2017)

2018 Leaf will be introduced in 6 days. It's expected to have longer range.


----------



## woodgeek (Aug 31, 2017)

CaptSpiff said:


> Did Nissan just DROP THE MIC on the 2017 LEAF ?????
> 
> $10,000 off msrp rebate from Nissan, plus state, plus Fed credits???
> 
> ...



Nissan has been offering incentives like that across the country since the launch of the LEAF in 2011...that's how the lease rates on a $30k MSRP car get down to $200/mo.  And how they managed to move close to 120k units of the Gen 1 model in the US, when no one believed that a pure battery EV would work.  Way more than all other BEVs combined (although Tesla has been catching up lately).

The same incentives push down the used car prices....the new models are so cheap, the asking price on the used one has to be lower.

This is evidence that Nissan is committed to building a user base, even if they have to spend some money to do it, i.e. not just compliance cars.

GM is NOT offering similar deals on the Bolt...leases have been running more than 50% higher.  Like several $k down, and $350/mo, for a low-mileage lease.  Of course, I think GM is conservative on the engineering, and want to have low sales until they get lots of real world, 'beta test' data through OnStar.  Then they will either ramp incentives and sales, or they won't and it will be a long-range compliance car.

2018 LEAF specs: http://insideevs.com/2018-nissan-leaf-specs-leaked/

Bottom line: 2X the usable range of the original LEAF, 40% more horsepower, same weight, interior volume and MSRP.

2018 LEAF pics: http://insideevs.com/next-gen-nissan-leaf-spotted-dash-displays-265-km165-miles-of-range/
http://insideevs.com/new-nissan-leaf-without-camo/


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Aug 31, 2017)

begreen said:


> That is a bit steep. Maybe wait and see what Nissan comes out with next month.


Even if i could get past the butt ugly design , im sure i would never consider a nissan product. Plus i dont think they have put in the thermal mgmt R&D that GM has. Only foreign brand i ever owned was a toyota tacoma and it was totally inferior to the (older) GM trucks iv owned for decades.  I just think GM has the better product. IMHO


----------



## woodgeek (Aug 31, 2017)

Seasoned Oak said:


> Even if i could get past the butt ugly design , im sure i would never consider a nissan product. Plus i dont think they have put in the thermal mgmt R&D that GM has. Only foreign brand i ever owned was a toyota tacoma and it was totally inferior to the (older) GM trucks iv owned for decades.  I just think GM has the better product. IMHO



Tastes differ, of course.  I am no fan of Toyota after years driving their cars.  Others swear by them.

RE the thermal management issue...I am a Nissan apologist. 

They batteries they've sold since 2013 have been solid performers without thermal management.  That is not a LACK of engineering...its battery engineering.  If you can make a EV-custom battery whose chemistry works well over a wide range of temps, then you don't need a heavy/complex thermal management system. If you are using off the shelf laptop batteries with a narrow temp range spec from the manufacturer (as Tesla did for many years), then you have no choice engineering-wise other than to integrate active heating/cooling, despite it costing more money, weight, pack volume, and complexity.  Adding a cooler is not high-tech....its an off the shelf refrigeration unit and a simple controller.

If future batteries are heat proof....temperature management will go the way of the dodo.

Another issue is cooling on road trips with frequent fast charges....the LEAF pack does have air channels for cooling that are passively connected to an intake the drives air into the pack when at speed.


----------



## begreen (Aug 31, 2017)

Seasoned Oak said:


> Even if i could get past the butt ugly design , im sure i would never consider a nissan product. Plus i dont think they have put in the thermal mgmt R&D that GM has. Only foreign brand i ever owned was a toyota tacoma and it was totally inferior to the (older) GM trucks iv owned for decades.  I just think GM has the better product. IMHO


The new design looks much more conventional. I wouldn't be surprised if their battery mgmt. has greatly improved too.


----------



## georgepds (Aug 31, 2017)

Seasoned Oak said:


> ....  I just think GM has the better product. IMHO




Did 10 years in a 1980 Chevette, definitely not a better product

OTOH,  I like the design of my gen2 volt... not sure it's a better product, but definitely a good design for the transition period.  Driving around town is all electric,driving long distance is hybrid

First 2(nearly) years have been without problems


----------



## begreen (Aug 31, 2017)

FWIW, I've owned Hondas, Toyotas and Nissan cars and trucks. They all were fine vehicles with very little service needed. During that time Ford and Chevy made some really poor products. Now we have a Chevy Volt and a Ford truck. I'm glad American products have raised the bar and are performing well again.


----------



## WoodyIsGoody (Aug 31, 2017)

woodgeek said:


> Another issue is cooling on road trips with frequent fast charges....the LEAF pack does have air channels for cooling that are passively connected to an intake the drives air into the pack when at speed.



Fastest charge times:

Tesla Model 3 (initial release) 170 miles in 30 minutes
Chevy Bolt                                90 miles in 30 minutes
Nissan Leaf                                   ???


----------



## WoodyIsGoody (Aug 31, 2017)

begreen said:


> During that time Ford and Chevy made some really poor products. Now we have a Chevy Volt and a Ford truck. I'm glad American products have raised the bar and are performing well again.



Tesla is putting the heat on the other manufacturers. Their quality, fit/finish, engineering and design are stunning. And they have the highest "Made in America" content. Can you imagine the humiliation the engineers in Detroit must feel when they are out-classed by a fruity company in California?


----------



## begreen (Aug 31, 2017)

The Japanese rubbed American car mfg's noses in the dirt during the 1980's and 1990s and they responded with better products. Car companies are global now and the bar around the world is higher. That's a good thing imo. FWIW I've had a Tesla owner in our Volt and he was quite complimentary, particularly for a car that cost half of his Tesla's cost.


----------



## georgepds (Aug 31, 2017)

The volt has details that you used to see only in Mercedes-Benz.,e.g. the door hinges are bolted to the frame

Not so with the Chevete.. welded hinges


----------



## woodgeek (Aug 31, 2017)

WoodyIsGoody said:


> Fastest charge times:
> 
> Tesla Model 3 (initial release) 170 miles in 30 minutes
> Chevy Bolt                                90 miles in 30 minutes
> Nissan Leaf                                   ???



My *2013* LEAF has been managing about 60 miles added highway range in 30 minutes.  Not too shabby for 4 year old EV tech.

Not sure about the Bolt around here....the DCFCs all appear to be 50 kW max, good for about 75-80 miles on a Bolt or a Gen 2 LEAF in 30 mins.


----------



## WoodyIsGoody (Aug 31, 2017)

begreen said:


> FWIW I've had a Tesla owner in our Volt and he was quite complimentary, particularly for a car that cost half of his Tesla's cost.




That's more of a testament that the Tesla owner was polite, mature and classy, not that he thought it compared favorably except on price. Also, electric car owners tend to "get it", or understand the current AGW situation is critical and that all electric cars help. This is no time to get snobbish over Tesla vs. Chevy. But there is little doubt the Tesla (even the Model 3) is superior in terms of engineering, driving dynamics and overall quality.  The Chevy is a well made practical car. The Tesla aspires to more.


----------



## WoodyIsGoody (Aug 31, 2017)

georgepds said:


> The volt has details that you used to see only in Mercedes-Benz.,e.g. the door hinges are bolted to the frame
> 
> Not so with the Chevete.. welded hinges



My 2000 Volvo has door hinges bolted to the frame (and it's 18 years old).


----------



## begreen (Aug 31, 2017)

WoodyIsGoody said:


> That's more of a testament that the Tesla owner was polite, mature and classy, not that he thought it compared favorably except on price. Also, electric car owners tend to "get it", or understand the current AGW situation is critical and that all electric cars help. This is no time to get snobbish over Tesla vs. Chevy. But there is little doubt the Tesla (even the Model 3) is superior in terms of engineering, driving dynamics and overall quality.  The Chevy is a well made practical car. The Tesla aspires to more.


That's a possibility though in this case incorrect. He actually was considering getting one for his wife and liked several features, the smaller size and the genset inclusion a lot. Not all are smitten with the T.
https://www.consumeraffairs.com/automotive/tesla_motors.html


----------



## georgepds (Aug 31, 2017)

WoodyIsGoody said:


> My 2000 Volvo has door hinges bolted to the frame (and it's 18 years old).


A well-designed car


----------



## georgepds (Aug 31, 2017)

begreen said:


> That's a possibility though in this case incorrect. He actually was considering getting one for his wife and liked several features, the smaller size and the genset inclusion a lot. Not all are smitten with the T.
> https://www.consumeraffairs.com/automotive/tesla_motors.html




On that site.. if you hit compare companies,Tesla gets 3stars, Chevy gets2


----------



## begreen (Aug 31, 2017)

Yep, spread over many models, not two. Chevy has a dealer problem. Lots of service complaints. Good to see no Volt complaints though.


----------



## woodgeek (Sep 23, 2017)

CEO of GM gave a speech in China coming out against the recent announcement of China planning to ban gas and diesel light vehicles at an unspecified future date:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/15/business/gm-china-ceo-gasoline.html?

This is an issue of course, because China is the LARGEST car market in the world, since it passed the US a few years back.

From the article:

_Speaking in Shanghai on Friday, Ms. Barra said her company was making a big push to develop electric cars but that consumers, not government dictates, should decide how cars are powered.

“I think it works best when, instead of mandating, customers are choosing the technology that meets their needs,” she said.

China this month joined other countries, including Britain and France, to say they will eventually ban sales of gasoline- and diesel-powered cars. 

....

China issued draft regulations in June to require all automakers to begin selling large and ever-growing numbers of so-called new-energy vehicles over the next several years. Those draft rules, which would reward automakers for the number of new-energy cars they make, emphasize battery-electric cars over plug-in hybrid electric cars. Global automakers have been lobbying the Chinese government to loosen the rules before they are finalized.

Electric cars may have more appeal in China anyway. Major cities are linked by high-speed rail, and long drives between cities have never really taken root here the way they have in the United States and Europe.
_
Relevant for this thread, of course, because GM is making the Volt and Bolt in low volumes, not really advertising them, at the same time they are downtalking EVs at the corporate level.  Get a Bolt?  No thanks.


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Sep 23, 2017)

Competition is always good. Both forms of transportation will benefit if both are allowed to compete.


----------



## woodgeek (Sep 23, 2017)

Seasoned Oak said:


> Competition is always good. Both forms of transportation will benefit if both are allowed to compete.



Indeed. There will be plenty of time to compete between now and 2030 or 2040.

I think the ONLY real import of these 'announcements' is that it helps get the zeitgeist on board with an EV powered future....which will take a while.

By the time these policies are enacted....they will be unnecessary.


----------



## blades (Sep 23, 2017)

Wasn't GM that just moved 90% of their RD work to China? ( think that was last year sometime that that was picked up and very quickly killed in the Media)


----------



## semipro (Sep 23, 2017)

China is in a great position for "leap frogging" ahead of the U.S. in many areas.  They've taken advantage of the R&D done in the U.S. and their own (incredible) capabilities for production to implement the types of systems that we still squabble about in the U.S. (e.g high speed rail).  As an example, the many polluting scooters and motorcycles that used to move their people are rapidly being replaced by e-bikes.  Unless we get our stuff together in the U.S. we'll be looking to China and others for the technology we need to become economically and environmentally sustainable -- a sad turn of events.


----------



## jebatty (Sep 24, 2017)

semipro said:


> the many polluting scooters and motorcycles that used to move their people are rapidly being replaced by e-bikes.


 ... and I recently received my electric front wheel that turns almost any bike into an e-bike. UrbaNext I installed this on my wife's bike so that we more easily may ride together, as I normally ride faster than she does. First analysis of this electric wheel to e-bike conversion: very good and usable, especially for commuting. I got an extra battery, li-ion and very light in weight, to extend the range. With the extra battery the bike easily handled 18 miles of mostly gravel and hilly terrain and riding mostly all electric but using pedal assist on the hills.


----------



## Cynnergy (Sep 27, 2017)

Dyson of the vacuums is R&D'ing an EV.  Very interesting he's decided to go in this direction.  https://www.theguardian.com/technol...yson-electric-car-2020?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

FWIW the battery in my cordless vac seems to be doing well(!).  


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## begreen (Sep 27, 2017)

Cynnergy said:


> Dyson of the vacuums is R&D'ing an EV.  Very interesting he's decided to go in this direction.  https://www.theguardian.com/technol...yson-electric-car-2020?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
> 
> FWIW the battery in my cordless vac seems to be doing well(!).



That sucks!


----------



## jebatty (Oct 10, 2017)

Lots of chatter on decline of oil as BEVs charge into into the market.

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/...ling-oil-demand-china-gm-ev-future-automakers


----------



## Seasoned Oak (Oct 10, 2017)

If they go ahead with the keystone pipeline ,they must by banking on relatively strong demand for the future.


----------



## WoodyIsGoody (Oct 10, 2017)

Seasoned Oak said:


> If they go ahead with the keystone pipeline ,they must by banking on relatively strong demand for the future.



Planned Canadian pipelines are being cancelled, left and right, because they are uneconomical:

http://thehill.com/policy/energy-en...-cancels-two-major-canadian-pipeline-projects


----------

