Vroom Vroom!

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

So, last March, I posted about electric vehicles, specifically about by position on the Nissan Leaf and Chevy Volt. Many of you were correct, however, in that I may have been premature in my evaluations. Among the most relevant data shared was the Volt "selling every one [they could] make" and 20k preorders for the Leaf, and that it was a deliberately slow rollout. The consensus, at least at the time, appeared to be that we needed to have a year under our belt to really get a good grasp on the situation.

So what do we know now in 2012 that we didn't in 2011?

* GM predicted at least 10k Volts sold in 2010, and didn't even come close to that number, missing it by nearly 2400 cars, spurred in part by an allowance to sell the existing demo models. Inexplicably, GM intends to produce 60k of them this year even though demand has not been high. Granted: the Volt only reached nationwide status in the fourth quarter, but that did not seem to show significantly more demand.

* If the Chevy Volt isn't winning over hearts and minds, the Nissan Leaf isn't faring much better. It had higher sales year-long than the Volt, coming in at 9600 sold in the US. The Leaf, however, saw its sales peak over the summer and has mostly seen a precipitous decline from its height.

The issue with electric cars remains the same: they're expensive, they don't go far, and they cost too much to the taxpayer. A Volt costs the taxpayer $250k per vehicle sold on top of the ticket cost to the consumer - no wonder you have to be fairly affluent to drive one. The Volt runs for a whopping 40 miles on electricity (and then another 340 per tank on premium gas), the Leaf a significantly-better-yet-still-sad 110 miles at best, probably closer to 75 - I drove more than that to visit my friend last weekend. With the price tag in the high $20s-low $30s even with tax credits, it's not likely to find many more adopters, etiher - catching only 2% of the market overall isn't much of a splash for an industry with high expectations it set for itself, never mind what the rest of the people who supposedly know what they're doing thought. But, to be fair, even the execs are only thinking 6% market share 13 years from now.

The Jalopnik post above says it best, to me:

I can't look someone in the eye who's about to buy their first car and say, "Look, buy this electric vehicle. It's not very fun. It's not what you want. You can't really haul anything. It's very likely not any better for the environment. But it is very, very quiet. Especially for the hours and hours it takes to charge."

The reality is that we will see viable alternative energy vehicles sooner rather than later. I think, given what we know about the electric options available and the options coming down the turnpike, that electric vehicles are not ready for prime time, and perhaps aren't actually the answer at all. I could still be proven wrong on this, but when we sink literally billions of taxpayer dollars into a technology that so few people want or need, it may be time to say "enough is enough" on the electric car experiment. We now know who killed the electric car - the consumer.

Comments

[onefatmusicnerd.livejournal.com]

My stock 1989 Toyota Carolla gets 42mpg.

[mikeyxw.livejournal.com]

The new Audi A3 diesels get 44 mpg highway with 200 hp. It's fun to drive, sexy to look at, and is in the same price range as an electric... only it's a real car.

If you want something girly, they have the same technology in a VW.

[nevermind6794.livejournal.com]

It comes from "a Michigan think tank." No link, no analysis of the study, no detail provided. Oh yeah, and supported by the guy from Hot Air, who is clearly an expert.

[kayjayuu.livejournal.com]

Maybe you're premature in your evaluations, since it's only been a year. Even great television shows aren't canceled after just one... episo--

... 'cause the ratings could... I mean, business decisions are...

...

Nevermind.

[fizzyland.livejournal.com]

Clearly we should stop trying to develop new things. Especially when we're depending upon a dwindling resource to power the current technology.

I'm sure it will all work itself out and failing that, there's always scavenging and cannibalism.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

The question isn't whether we should stop trying (Jeff says that he expects alternative-source cars in the near future) but whether we should stop trying this.

[paedraggaidin.livejournal.com]

Eh, what gets me about the whole "alternative energy" vehicles is that we've been running ships on petroleum-electric power for more than 100 years now. Increasing industrial capacity and miniaturization could very easily have made hybrid vehicles cheaply available to a mass market by the 1950s, and had enough R&D been put into, conceivably electric vehicles a long time ago as well.

But (just as they destroyed the electric urban streetcar systems in the United States and by so doing denied millions of non-driving Americans equal access to transportation, and directly contributing to urban air pollution) the auto and petroleum industries have done their damnedest to kill the idea of any passenger vehicle that doesn't run on 100% petroleum. The fact that they're marketing such cars now is only because they know the days of the all-petrol car are numbered.

Now, y'all know I'm not one of those corporate-hating anti-capitalists (right? lol) but in this instance I find the past half-century or so of auto innovation to be utterly idiotic. Even in the 1970s, in the midst of an oil crisis, the Big Three kept making hideously fuel-inefficient V8 monstrosities, meanwhile the world's navies were employing hundreds of advanced diesel-electric submarines....

*sigh* Sorry. I don't mean to get all agitated. But as an American who is unable to drive, and who has lived in two metropolitan areas with wholly insufficient public transportation (and Washington, DC, which let me tell you, was like paradise on that front), and whose quality of life has suffered because of air pollution...the whole story just ticks me off.

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

It's a matter of energy density coupled with cost. Petrocarbons have made sense by such a huge degree over electricity for the past 100 years you'd have had to have been insane to advocate it up till fairly recently.

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

The only sensible thing is that everyone who doesn't drive an electric vehicle but advocates for them should feel a great sense of shame for their lack of bravery.

Once I get a few financial issues straightened out I plan on purchasing one because of the long term stability of electric prices and I'm okay with paying a premium to be an early adopter.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Interesting. I was about to say I'm surprised that you're diving in, but you also dove in on solar, which I find fascinating as a matter of good economics. Is it just that you're hedging on a large spike in energy prices or something else?

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

The one issue that I think you would worry about is that given our current energy system it does centralize control over power. Of course, given our current oil system, that's not a huge change, just different people.

Of course, there is the other side of that coin- electric vehicles are generally energy agnostic, the energy can come from a variety of sources. A centralized system can be upgraded easier and if things change, it doesn't mean you have to re-invent your entire auto population if you come out with a new abundant energy source.

Of course, I'm driving a car that is old enough to vote. I'm kind of outside it all besides on a hypothetical level.

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

From what I've read in the automotive press, the Nissan Leaf is very well executed, but probably too soon for the general consumer. The "100 mile" range claim is closer to "80 miles" and that is with the driver behaving in a distressingly conservative fashion on flat roads. Throw in the heater in winter or A/C in summer or some up and downs, and you may be down to 60 miles. Reviewers cannot get past that, and frankly few drivers would want that to be their ONLY car. If you have a daily drive that you know has no surprises or simply do short run errands, it can work. But then you still need a car for unplanned drives and anything long distance. That makes the Leaf a VERY expensive second car for most families.

The Volt is another matter. I know you cite them not making their target numbers, but their numbers went UP every month last year from July to December. December sales were over 1500, (http://media.gm.com/content/Pages/news/us/en/2012/Jan/gmsales/_jcr_content/rightpar/sectioncontainer/par/download/file.res/Deliveries%20December%202011.pdf) up from 300 in August.

And the car is a real game changer for electrics -- a near term solution for the range problem and that's nothing to scoff at. The Volt may only get 40 miles on the battery charge, but the gasoline engine does not provide power to the drive train -- it runs the electric motor, so unlike hybrid drive trains, the electric motor is doing everything, including providing the torque needed to be a nifty car to drive on all roads. The automotive press is very impressed with driving dynamics, not something expected with an electric drive train. And the range extension makes it an entirely plausible family car with most drivers not engaging the gasoline motor for more than a few miles a day -- and having a huge safety margin in case of the unexpected.

Yes, the battery only range is limited now, but the Volt gives GM a near term solution for sale today with an existing platform that can be continuously extended as battery tech improves -- that matters. You can drive a Volt like any other car in the compact segment TODAY, and with the entire drive train being electric only, the range on initial battery charge alone can keep being extended per model refresh.

And I seriously would not bet AGAINST electric as the drive train of the future. Toyota set the standard for the whole industry by making large battery packs in cars feasible with the Prius ten years ago. That's ten years of investment in battery technology and integrating electric into vehicle drive trains. That's the regenerative braking technology that Toyota put in the Prius and that Chevy uses in the Volt. That's a huge industry investment in every major marque in the development of batteries. Nobody is moving away from electric any time soon. And just for shits and giggles, even Rolls Royce is experimenting with all electric drive trains. (http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/rolls-royce-electric-phantom-102ex-drive-review)

The Volt has some hurdles now in today's market, for sure. I would not buy one of this generation based on the cost and the fact that I think the center stack is hideous. It also has solid competition in the C-segment by every major manufacturer, including Chevy. Line up the current advantages of the Volt with what is on the market today: Ford's completely redesigned Focus, Hyundai's all new Elantra, Chevy's own Cruze, Honda's Civic, Toyota's perrenial sales leading Corolla...well, you get the picture. All of these vehicles can push upper 30s in MPG and they all start below 18 grand.

And very few of them were this good 3 years ago -- every car maker is currently upping the C-segment for a global market more interested in fuel economy and combining value with amenities. That makes the Volt's sticker a bit of a shock, but I think the concept has legs. GM has tackled a LOT of problems with this vehicle and future model upgrades can use the existing drive train to incrementally increase the battery range. Ten years from now, this is probably going to be how everyone is doing it in at least part of their model range.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

If these vehicles are expensive now, and I assume it's at least as much engineering issues as anything else that makes them so, then why precisely is necessity going to work a miracle in the future if people aren't willing to make this work now? If they are a necessity now, why let customers kill it instead of trying to find a model that could or would work? Of course this is bad because warrgarbl and here the free market won't work because argle-blargle StalincommunismMuslinKenyanHitlerBinLadenSeacrest but at least there should be efforts to find a model that works and use it, right?

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

Conversely, how long should the public be expected to fund this particular fuel alternative? Are the hopes you have, if given enough time, whatever that may be, that this particular avenue will bring good fruit, based on anything more solid than the expectations of those who believe it never will?

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

For that matter with this kind of attitude the USA would never have developed an atomic bomb because that was a difficult, time-consuming money sinkhole which if it went wrong might have potentially ignited the entire atmosphere. Nor would the USA have developed any kind of technology more sophisticated than the muzzle-loading firearm and the ass end of a mule pulling a plow.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

Have you ever driven a Tesla?

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

I have not.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

That car is rad.

[the-rukh.livejournal.com]

Mitsubishi actually had made a pretty neat car not too long ago. It was a modified evo with four electric motors, one for each wheel independently.

[nevermind6794.livejournal.com]

"Two-thirds of the executives surveyed believe that combined hybrid and electric-vehicle sales will account for as little as 6 percent of the market in the United States and Western Europe as late as 2025."

Why do you think the article didn't say "as much as X%"? Or provide a range? And why is a long-term investment a bad thing anyway?

"When all government grants, subsidies and credits are added up, each Volt sold so far has cost taxpayers nearly $250,000, estimates a Michigan think tank."

Oh yes, A Michigan Think Tank. Their studies have been shown to be useful.

"I can't look someone in the eye who's about to buy their first car and say, "Look, buy this electric vehicle. It's not very fun. It's not what you want. You can't really haul anything. It's very likely not any better for the environment. But it is very, very quiet. Especially for the hours and hours it takes to charge.""

That guy's not talking about the Volt, or the Roadster, he's talking in general - and many of these points were wrong. (http://boingboing.net/2012/01/05/hey-electric-cars-dont.html)

Yes, electric cars are clearly too expensive and nobody will ever buy them, like those $800-in-the-90s DVD players and those $2000-in-1890 Model Ts. Nobody should make them, because there is absolutely no upside.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Why do you think the article didn't say "as much as X%"? Or provide a range? And why is a long-term investment a bad thing anyway?

I haven't put much thought into the reporting/editorial decisions in this case. As for long-term investment, long-term investment is a good thing if such investment is worth the time.

Yes, electric cars are clearly too expensive and nobody will ever buy them, like those $800-in-the-90s DVD players and those $2000-in-1890 Model Ts. Nobody should make them, because there is absolutely no upside.

What if the gasoline car is really the betamax, and we're being conned into thinking the VCR is actually better?

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

In what chapter of my Jeffonomics 101 text book do I find the bit where products with large tax subsidies are necessarily only affordable to the affluent?

Of course I'm not addressing anything you said, just sniping at this line: A Volt costs the taxpayer $250k per vehicle sold on top of the ticket cost to the consumer - no wonder you have to be fairly affluent to drive one. I do this because I think it's important to point out to you when you're speaking out of your arse when it happens, because I can never be bothered going back to find these little joys when I accuse you of committing fallacies in later discussions. Carry on.

(frozen) (no subject)

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

Oh, and not to mods if this is too personal. Jeff has disavowed all schools of thought on economics and offered his own "intuitive" solution. I feel that this means we should be free to constantly criticise his every thought, as brain farts seem to be the main source for his theories.