Vroom Vroom!
5/1/12 12:58![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsSo, 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:
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.
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.
(no subject)
Date: 5/1/12 21:23 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 5/1/12 21:31 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 5/1/12 22:18 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 6/1/12 00:36 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 5/1/12 22:16 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 6/1/12 06:46 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 6/1/12 12:35 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 6/1/12 14:19 (UTC)These early mass market cars may not be instant sales leaders (they don't have to be), but unless someone has magic knowledge of a new power plant that is only ten years away, it would NOT be a safe bet to bet against electric drive trains being a continued and developing presence.
(no subject)
Date: 6/1/12 15:11 (UTC)To be fair, though, the commitment exists because the government has decided that this is a winner, even though the consumer hasn't shown that same decision. I think you have a lot of good points to chew on, especially in your longer comment, but I also believe it's folly to pretend that the automakers would be making this same decision if the risk was entirely in their court.
(no subject)
Date: 6/1/12 15:29 (UTC)Look at oil from shale. As the cost of extraction goes up the viability of it followed. Likewise all non-oil tech is becoming more viable.
All gov't tinkering is doing is really just throwing chaff into the market place allowing for bad players to stay in and executives to make bank on poor ideas.
Imagine how "awful" it would be for a lean new startup to come to market with an affordable NEV (neighborhood electric vehicle- typically low speed minimal safety with a short range) because there was demand. Why, people might forgo expensive vehicles. Imagine how much our GDP would suffer! The horror.
(no subject)
Date: 6/1/12 15:41 (UTC)The reason you can get a tax credit for an electric vehicle is not because the government turned around to Nissan in 2005 and said "Develop an EV and we'll offset some of the cost to consumers" but because Nissan was developing a mass market EV. And the reason they were developing a mass market EV is because the entire industry's commitment to battery technology for hybrid drive trains made a fully electric drive train realistic. Look at the development trends in the auto industry since Toyota made the hybrid drive train a consumer hit ten years ago, and you cannot help but conclude that fully electric drive trains were the next step for the industry. That's where they've been spending the R&D because of the market success of hybrids.
Electric drive trains are a long way still from being a big market share, although I think both Nissan and Chevrolet will get huge sales commitments from municipal fleets in cities like New York, Chicago and Los Angeles. But there is no other way to power a car that has the ground work already in place like batteries.
(no subject)
Date: 6/1/12 15:54 (UTC)Electric drive trains can also be powered by hydrogen fuel cells, so there's versatility there too. (http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2009-honda-fcx-clarity-road-test) So I think the EV developers probably have their eyes on other ways to power their drive trains apart from recharging batteries.