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

[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.

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

Energy agnosticism really is key. The supply chain for fuel becomes virtually infinite as there's only a few ways to get unleaded gasoline in America but virtually infinite ways to get electricity. It really hedges against supply chain problems more than ethanol ever could.

Of course, energy availability will always be an issue. Petroleum will always be needed.

I just wish cities and states wouldn't be so ham-fisted in their attempts to encourage a reduction in dependency on gasoline and diesel. Better city planning would be far far better than trying to wedge in alternatives.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

I can agree with this, as we need petroleum for a lot more than simply cars or planes. The problem is in using it for where it is not needed, as opposed to where it is needed.