Electric Cars ARE Coming, But It Will Be Slow: Why Is This So Hard To Grasp? Page 2
How Are Electric-Car Batteries Made? Photos From Nissan's New Plant
Making a battery for an electric car is more like assembling microelectronics than the kind of... Read More
- #4LEADERBOARD RANK
- 2897ARTICLES CONTRIBUTED
- 1949COMMENTS POSTED
Add to circle
Related Photo Galleries
-
VW Talks Future Tech: Plug-Ins, Natural Gas...
-
2013 Nissan Leaf: Driven Through Tennessee...
-
2013 Smart Electric Drive To Offer Battery...
See more photos »
Also See
-
Phinergy 1000-Mile Aluminum-Air Battery: On The...
-
Mercedes-Benz SLS AMG Electric Drive Supercar...
-
2014 Cadillac ELR Video Preview
See more video »
Nissan CEO Carlos Ghosn has said many times that for his company, the "hockey stick" upturn in sales will come around 2016, when the company and its alliance partner Renault together can build half a million electric cars a year or more.
Even allowing for some slippage, that means that 2018 might be the point where "regular" buyers begin to consider plug-ins seriously.
By then, they may have rented one, they may have ridden in a relative's or a neighbor's electric car--and, just like hybrids, they'll have learned that they're not quite so foreign or nervous-making as they'd thought.
2020 or later
For the rest of the industry, that hockey stick may come in 2020 or later.
So what does that mean? That means that for the next decade, electric cars will remain rare.
That corresponds to the adoption curve of pretty much any expensive new automotive technology. It took a decade or sometimes several before electric self-starters, automatic transmissions, disc brakes, fuel injection, turbochargers, and other advances became mainstream.
So it will be with plug-in cars.
Most early buyers: It's not about cost
One final note: There's widespread misunderstanding about the early buyers of plug-ins, all of whom can afford them. And contrary to the conventional wisdom, many or most of them don't do so because electric cars will cost them less money in the long run.
The early buyers of plug-in cars include early adopters, technology enthusiasts, uber-greens, energy security folks, and those who I fondly call the "cheap bastards"--the folks who calculate total cost of ownership like fleet buyers, and plan to own their plug-ins long enough that they actually see a payback.
Each of those five groups is a distinct audience, but they are far from the mainstream buyers who will start to consider plug-ins six to 10 years from now. (Just as plenty of mainstream buyers are now comfortable enough with the Toyota Prius hybrid, after 12 years, that they have made it Toyota's third best-selling line of cars in the U.S.)
The widely accepted idea among auto journalists that electric cars are a non-starter because they cost more to own is uninformed--just as uninformed as the expectation among some environmentalists that a third of the cars in showrooms in 2020 will have plugs.
Better driving experience is the hidden ace
As costs come down, the biggest appeal of electrics for the future mass market could well turn out to be driving experience.
An electric car is simply better to drive than a comparable gasoline car. It offers lots of low-end torque, it's smooth and quiet, and there's no shifting going on.
Spend a week in a Nissan Leaf, and then return to your similarly sized gasoline or diesel car. You'll be surprised at how raucous it is and how much mechanical stuff is going on in the background.
We just don't know
Of course, the great thing about the future is that we can never predict it.
So any projections of electric-car sales are only estimates, based on what we think we know today.
And as always, there's a huge asterisk on any mid- or long-term sales estimate: "This projection may be affected by unexpected changes in global oil prices."
If for whatever reason, oil prices fell to $50 a barrel and stayed there, prospects for plug-in car sales emerging from early adopters and tech geeks into the mass market would be dimmed considerably.
But few people expect that to happen.
1 percent globally in 2020?
Assuming that oil prices stay at $70 a barrel or higher for some years--or, even worse, oscillate from lows to highs and back again--it's reasonable to expect plug-ins to make up 0.5 percent to 2 percent of global production in 2020.
One to 1.5 percent is a relatively conservative estimate, meaning 800,000 to 1.5 million cars depending on total global production.
Just as an aside, the cost of lithium-ion cell fabrication plants to produce 1.5 million car's worth a year (assuming 20-kWh battery packs) could run as high as $5 billion itself.
Meanwhile, electric-car sales in the U.S. might be higher, perhaps 2 to 4 percent. That would be 300,000 to 600,000 vehicles, assuming our market stays around 15 million vehicles on average.
So the next time someone tells you "electric cars are a market failure," smile indulgently at them. Pat them gently on their shoulder. Say something like, "Yes, dear, I know."
And then run them through the numbers.
+++++++++++
Follow GreenCarReports on Facebook and Twitter.
Related Articles
-
Hybrid Sales Soar So Far In 2013: Ford Rises, Prius Falls
-
100,000th Plug-In Electric Car In U.S. Sold Today (More Or Less)
-
Can Ford's C-Max And Fusion Hybrids Really Outsell Toyota?
-
Plug-in Electric Car Sales In Canada, April 2013
-
2013 Lincoln MKZ Hybrid Sales Finally Tick Up On Availability
-
Follow Us
On Facebook
Most Popular This Week
More »
Tesla Model S Vs Chevy Volt: Owner Compares Electric Cars 
Is Tesla About To Offer Battery-Pack Swapping For Model S? 
BMW CEO To Germans: Get Over Your Angst, Buy Electric Cars... 
Diesel Cars: Six Important Things Everyone Should Know (But May... 
North Carolina Wants To Make It Illegal For Tesla To E-Mail... Find Green Cars
Photo Galleries
More from High Gear Media
- Follow Us
Have an opinion?
For cheap bastards the only viable option is the LEAF. The Volt and Focus will follow as cheap bastard options once the price can come down $5,000, or the price of gas sky rocket, whichever comes first as they say in auto industry.
They are trying to find a balance between range and price. The most beneficial use of the Leaf is as a second "commuter car" for families that already have a car they can use for longer trips. Most commuters drive less than 35 miles round trip in one day. For them it is better to have a range that matches their needs at a lower price rather than spend more on range that is not needed.
they get what they can - part of capitalism and supply and demand.
a point about a "second" car - most people are talking about an ev as a second car, in that the family unit does not want to give up the ownership of a car that has a higher range.
however, that "second" car (if it is an ev) will get many more miles driven than will their "first" car.
And the cost of an EV is nowhere near $16k, as you apparently believe it is. Contrary to what so many here believe, at this stage of development, EVs are more expensive than ICE vehicles. I would think that would be obvious by now.
So, instead of selling an EV and losing $10k per vehicle, now the OEMs shoudl sell for $20k less each, triple the loss and then increase volumes?
Yeah, that's a winning strategy. EV credibility over profits isn't a long-term strategy.
Sure, if you drive inefficiently, you'll get maybe 70-90 miles of range, but that is a choice you make, it's not a function of the car.
As for family outings, going to work, or other normal driving needs. the EV is perfect. There is no need to get upset about whether your car will make it because when you bought the car, you already knew that it would be fine for the kind of driving you do.
So, do please enlighten me as to which statements (provide quotes, please) constitute "snake oil" in this article? I'm curious.
I am not sure what I am ignorant about. You cannot possibly make up the difference in cost between the 21 mpg car and the $36,000 Volt, purchase of solar panels, and the charger. I am guessing that your 21 mpg car had devalued as much as it can. It was free transportation. Your Volt started losing value as soon as you drove it off the lot. Your car is not a pure e- car. A Nissan Leaf is a pure e- car...nice review (http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2011-nissan-leaf-sl-short-take-road-test). Its practical range sux. I haven't stated anything that wasn't true. Enlighten me on where I got it wrong.
1.VW Jetta TDI – 47.3 mpg
2.Toyota Prius – 46.0 mpg
3.smart fortwo – 43.9 mpg
4.Ford Focus – 36.9 mpg
Stage Two – City Driving Results (132 miles, stop and go)
1.Toyota Prius – 52.4 mpg
2.smart fortwo – 34.0 mpg
3.VW Jetta TDI – 32.6 mpg
4.Ford Focus – 23.6 mpg
The prius gets better fuel economy and seats 5 adults and its a hatchback and can carry their luggage. In my family I have wife 2 children and 2 dogs. Why would anyone buy a Smartfortwo when there are other cars that get better fuel economy hold 4-5 people and their luggage?.
Yes the Prius will get slightly better mpg than the Smart but in congested towns here in the UK the Smart or IQ wins on maneuverability.Add to this there is only the two of us so taking anything bigger is a hinderance and is the very reason I choose the city car mostly.I do have a choice and find in our particular case its more practical size wise,in fact if it was electric all the better even with limited range.You seem reluctant to accept there are specific designs for specific jobs.I do know parking in America is nothing like here so a Smart is wasted but there "is" the rest of the world to consider!
prices will come down, range will increase - whatever is needed to sell the cars that have been manufactured.
it all comes down to 2 points, that are somewhat tied together.
1) how fast do the car companies want to sell evs ?
2) how fast can the car companies make the vast change in their manufacturing business.
if the bigwigs plan is to get off oil in one year, we would see this happen in one year.
if the bigwigs plan is to get off oil in 25 years, we will see this unfold over 25 years.
i am holding steadfast to my 10-year prediction. by then, i think that the price will have decreased enough such that few people will be buying NEW gas cars.
there will still be a lot of used gas cars sold.
but in comparison, how many ices will be produced ?
what i am guestimating is at what point will evs be dominant ?
that question all depends on price. range is only a small item, even today.
by that i mean that if an ev and an ice cost the same today, very few people would buy an ice.
of course not all bigwigs are on the same page.
but what the oil companies say is not really much of an argument.
what if in 10 years times, the oil companies said that plug-ins are here to stay ?
you gotta realize that what the bigwigs say is what they want you to think AT THIS MOMENT.
most everything you read is paid advertising of one sort or another.
http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1074183_how-much-and-how-fast-will-electric-car-battery-costs-fall
nor would any expert give a prediction based upon prior numbers.
but as with most topics, "experts" usually have no idea what is "gonna happen".
i still recall how "all the experts" were predicting chaos when the calendar struck 2000 - just a bunch of news hype.
as a computer person, i knew exactly what needed to be done to the programs. it was a minor fix.
there is one huge factor not accounted for, by basing any sort of prediction on prior events.
all of a sudden, we have a product that will ultimately use more lithium batteries than everything else put together.
a much better prediction is the old adage NEED IS THE MOTHER OF INVENTION.
Uhhhhh...really?
"Nor would any expert give a prediction based upon prior numbers."
Gosh. So history has nothing to teach us?
LOLOLOLOL.
i gave you a perfect reason why predictions on past numbers were meaningless. and you completely bypassed it because you had not comeback.
so you decided to give me some LOL comeback ? well LOL back at ya.
and just to make your argument even look more ridiculous - one could very easily show that prior sales had very little to do with other items IN HISTORY when they were revolutionary products.
such as the computer, the ipod, and the cell phone.
come back when you actually have an argument.
The salient fact to this discussion is that improvements in PCs, iPods + mobile phones all benefit from Moore's Law, which says that the processing power of silicon circuits doubles roughly every 18 months.
There is no Moore's law equivalent f/Li-ion cell improvement that anyone in the field knows of. As covered earlier, the best estimates of Li-ion cell improvement in price-performance appear to be 6 to 8 percent per year. You choose to disbelieve that.
In my eyes, the argument that because iPods improve at a given rate, Li-ion cells should do so too is simply fallacious.
The period often quoted as "18 months" is due to Intel executive David House, who predicted that period for a doubling in chip performance (being a combination of the effect of more transistors and their being faster).
Source, slightly edited: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore%27s_law
Looking at our market segment for the (then) current year, the experts predicted a hockey stick growth with linear extrapolations for the next 12 months followed by explosive rapid growth after that time.
Looking back through the previous five years, they predicted the same thing each year and each year it did not come true. So the next year they would predict even more radical growth 12 months out. So they were very bad a predicting...except
Eventually, their predictions did come to reality. So perhaps, "good" predictions with a time shift error.
Amusing to have both "linear growth" AND "explosive growth" forecast.
MrEnergyCzar
http://gas2.org/2009/12/01/with-new-battery-nissan-plans-to-double-ev-range-by-2015/
The cathode is generally graphite, but the anode may be one of several different chemistries:
- lithium cobalt dioxide (LiCoO2), used in mobile-phone & laptop cells, also the Tesla Roadster
- lithium nickel manganese cobalt oxide (LiNMC), as Chris O describes
- lithium iron phosphate (LiFePO4), as in A123 cells
- and there are others
Each Li-ion chemistry has different energy capacities, power characteristics, and decay rates. [cont.]
CoO2 also decays with time *as well as* with usage, meaning that it starts losing energy capacity the day after it's fabricated--and then it further decays with use.
Other chemistries do not decay over time nearly as rapidly, and are relatively less likely to self-oxidize. That's why no other carmaker uses CoO2.
Hope this helps a bit.
Regarding the article: So the variables are cost and torque?
first off, i do think that history is an excellent teacher.
but like anything else, it needs to be applied correctly.
if you want to provide an argument that is useful, you need to present something of a similar notion.
your argument about past events on lithium has a HUMONGOUS HOLE in it.
we now have a product that will use more lithium batteries than everything else put together.
any prediction minus that fact is totally worthless.
as i said previously, a much better adage is that NEED IS THE MOTHER OF INVENTION.
people make all sorts of predictions, which are almost always wrong. but what the heck - no one remembers anyway.
of course not. so they can basically spout off whatever they want without really any consequences.
i did not see anyone predicting the humongous computer take-off until it was already happening. the same is true with many, many products.
just a little bit of simple advice that i am sure you will not take to heart - dont put so much stock in what you hear.
another old adage - believe half of what you see and nothing what you hear.
most of these old sayings have a lot of truth to them - which is why they became old sayings.
i wouldnt give you 2 cents on the dollar for your stance to be correct.
there was once a time when oil was a new commodity - at least one before it was being used to make our cars go.
now all of a sudden, we start making cars that use oil - a brand new product that will use more oil than every other product put together.
and you think that prior oil numbers are gonna have anything to do with future oil numbers ?
your argument just has a hole that the grand canyon can fit inside.
it assumes that we will still be using lithium batteries in 10 years.
i doubt that. we will have a lot of jumps in the next 10 years with battery technology. i dont even want to guess just what the bigwigs will decide to release - except that i think it is likely that we will have bypassed lithium altogether for some other sort of technology.
if that is true, then lithium numbers would not have anything to do with ev growth, since they would no longer be powering the vehicles.
10 years is a LONG, LONG time for this sort of evolutionary product.
Thanks, John. This needed to be said and probably will be many times over.
Did you know that an LCD plant for large screen TVs costs upwards of $3B?
First John Voelcker was careful to say that this was not a linear progression, but went in jumps as new technologies matured. This process is expected to continue but the timeline discussed, 3 to 7 years is short enough that one or two jumps will make a big difference and will thus come short of or be much more than the 7% linear improvement. Just how dramatic these improvements are and how soon they will reach market will make a big difference. Most people agree that the holy grail is the lithium-air battery and that this will not be commercially available until well after 2020.
Lithium-Air is also presently considered to be a theoretical limit, that is batteries will not significantly improve after the lithium-air battery is perfected. Maybe yes, maybe no. I can remember when "experts" stated unequivocally that hard disk drives would never exceed 1GB because of theoretical limits. Problem is that the "experts" are usually from academia and talk about the limits of the current designs and approaches, but the engineers building hard drives just looked at that as a challenge to figure out how to alter the design to get around those limits.
Nearer term we can expect 3 times range improvement at same cost and size in about 5 years. A big jump is coming.
I think the theoretical physical limit using electrons is still *much* higher.
Of course if you argue that the subsidies must continue ad infinitum to equalize the cost - then the arguement makes sense.
In my opinion (I'll admit - not researched) unitl we see increased range, reduced battery weight, rapid recharge, and larger cars, the EV will play a nitch role as a commuter car. Until then, hybrids will continue to be the mainstream alternative to ICEs.
But I don't know who is going to shovel off my solar panels during these pesky midwest winters.
I'm no engineer but I can see the potential improvement there.
The larger issue is that there is very little sun in the winter which shows the true benefit of fossil fuels (or liquid fuels if you like). Their energy can be stored away for use at another time months from now. That is not an easy thing to do with solar.
Have an opinion?Join the conversation!