Gasoline, Diesel, Hybrids And Plug-Ins: The...
Bosch Offers Wireless Charging For Nissan Leaf...
Delays At Detroit Electric Postpone Electric...
Price Cuts Work: Waiting Lists For Electric...
2015 Infiniti LE 'Luxury Leaf' Sedan Put On...
We love data, and articles that analyze data.
We love them a little less when their opening lines sneer at sites like this one by calling them the "sunshine, lollipops and rainbows electric car press."
Still, there are far more interesting problems with a recent analysis on Seeking Alpha entitled "Electric Cars--Still Crazy After Five More Years."
Author John Peterson's premise is that, despite a Pike Research report that projected electric-car battery costs would fall to $520 per kilowatt-hour by 2017, electric cars still won't offer a payback in fuel-cost savings even five years hence.
Or as Peterson puts it, "...electric drive will remain hopelessly uneconomic because small batteries are beautiful when it comes to transportation economics but large batteries are aggressively ugly."
He then proceeds to quote Toyota's Bill Reinert, known throughout the industry for his frequently expressed belief that plug-ins with any battery size above about 5 kilowatt-hours make no sense.
Where we think Peterson misses the forest for the trees is his assumption that the only reason to buy a plug-in car is to save money.
It's not about payback
At prices of $28,000 and up (before incentives), plug-in cars are emphatically not the cheapest ride for most buyers today when all costs are included. (There are exceptions, we should note, but not all that many.)
Instead, the early buyers of plug-in cars fall into some relatively specific groups: early adopters, electric-drive fans, uber-greens, energy-security hawks, and finally the "cheap bastards," who carefully project lifetime costs for their cars and plan to keep them long enough where they will see a payback on a plug-in car.
Only one of those groups has cost savings as the purchase motivator. The others buy for completely different reasons--and, together, those groups will likely buy the first three to five years' worth of electric cars (along with large corporate and government fleets).
In due course, as battery costs come down 6 to 8 percent a year and plug-in sales slowly rise, early adopters will be overtaken by mass market buyers.
Some think that happens in 2016 (especially Nissan CEO Carlos Ghosn), while others say 2020 is more likely. Gasoline prices will play a role in the slope that curve too, as will higher costs for gasoline cars to meet increasingly stringent fuel economy rules.
Age-old argument
In fact, this small-battery vs. large-battery argument has raged for years in the electric-car world.
On the one hand are the minimalists, who say that you can get most of the savings of a battery electric car if you add a smallish plug-in pack (4 or 5 kilowatt-hours) to an existing hybrid car.
This is the approach taken by the 2012 Toyota Prius Plug-In--the car Reinert would tout as the only sensible solution--along with plug-in versions of the upcoming 2013 Ford C-Max and Ford Fusion. Those cars have electric ranges of 6 to 15 miles, under limited circumstances.
On the other hand are the zero-emission crowd, who point out that most people's driving falls within the 70-to-100-mile range of a modern battery electric car--which emits nothing and consumes no gasoline.
Investment advice
Peterson is primarily giving investment advice--he's bearish on lithium-ion cell makers, including the struggling A123 Systems [NSDQ:AONE], along with Tesla Motors [NSDQ:TSLA]--rather than advising car buyers.
Have an opinion?
GCR routinely focuses on cost analyses as the low-hanging-fruit for analysis of competing vehicles. Factors such as emission, energy security, etc, are frequently mentioned only in the second to last paragraph, if, in fact, at all.
So while the "forest" can meet the "trees", let's introduce the "pot" to the "kettle."
He often compares EVs to gasoline cars as though it's a binary thing. It's like comparing SUV's and 2-seater sports cars. SUV's are useless on the track 2-seater sports cars can't get the family on holiday therefore in John's binary world that would mean that they were all hopeless.
This seems reasonable. I don't think that the main stream buyers will be up for spending $40,000 for an EV with the price of gasoline at $4/gallon. There would have to be a big chance in the price of batteries, or gasoline, or an oil supply disruption to motivate more people into buying EVs.
But Mr. Peterson's question is a good one, should we invest in A123 or Tesla? I know I will not be doing that.
It's too early to get crazy, but leases may make sense for many people. My 38-mile R/T commute that took about 1.5 gallons of premium is now 100% electricity. At off-peak rates, that's now about $0.40. If my nothing-down $421/month (loaded, Nav. leather)saves me $155, I'm paying roughly $266.
I think that's reasonable.
I live in a wealthy suburb and for a lot of my neighbors who bought Priuses, this was a much less expensive car than the BMW, Audi's, Lexus, and Acura vehicles it replaced.
There are different market segments to consider.
Also, worth keeping in mind that the average new vehicle price is $30,000, not the $15,000 that EV opponents want to use as a comparison.
Exactly, the past day or so I've been having that argument with a moron on another site.
He cant get it thru his head that things come done in price after a x number of people buy them and improvements are made. It always happens and it'll happen again with EV's.
For instance, I own a Volt and plan to use my Volt exclusively for battery miles. If, at the end of my 36 month lease, almost all of my 36,000 miles are battery-based, my costs are approximately the same as they would have been had I leased an Elantra (and that assumes no gas $ increase)
EVs are cheaper in the long run, and anyone that does the math will see that. The problem is initial cost. Particularly in this tough economy, there are people, and I know some, that want to buy a plug-in vehicle, but the up-front sticker price is too much. Not by much, but enough. That's a lot of money to finance a Volt compared to a Cruze, for example.
The tax credit is received upon filing taxes and waiting for the credit. The full amount, minus a down-payment, needs to be financed up front. A point-of-sale rebate would help.
Tesla offered an optional battery replacement warrantee for the Roadster ($12k), guaranteeing the entire pack replacement at no additional charge, unless the replacement was needed prior to the end of the warrantee (7yrs. for Roadster, additional $2k charged for every year less than 7). If you needed the replacement after the regular warrantee expires, then Tesla refunds $1k per year beyond 7yrs at the time you replace the pack.
If Tesla does that again with the Model S and X, then you have the option to hedge your bets by buying the replacement warrantee.
And that's for a Volt, with an ICE still included. Eliminate that and even cheaper. Still too expensive for you? Do you need help with the math?
is the best way to go. And, with foresight, they might have designed it so that a larger pack could be swapped in later. I would certainly buy their Prius plug-in long before ever considering the Volt or Leaf.
Again, I'll ask you and again, you'll ignore the point, but here we go again. What part of a $371 monthly lease that saves me $180 in gas but costs me $20-$30 in extra electrcity don't you get? Is my actual cost of $250/month for the Volt after fuel savings still too expensive, as you claim?
We're all aware you hate the Volt after 100 comments. Is $250/month for it still too expensive?
For example some one with cash in the bank earning virtually nothing will probably earn around a 10-15% return if they were to put the additional 10K into a Volt over say a Camry. This based on monthly fuel savings and price differential .
Look at it that way and it is a good investment in to todays climate.
That off course assumes you have 10K sat in the bank doing nothing and you are prepared to spend 33K on a car in the first place. Most don't and aren't .
By extension riding a camel wouldn't save you any more gasoline either.
as a rule, experts dont know anything of value. they just spout off opinions.
if the bigwigs, or financial clout, or however else you want to name it - want to sell evs to the masses, they will. you can take that to the bank.
it is much better for an industry to make a gradual transformation. in this case from ices to evs.
but i still think that 10 years is enough time to make this change.
Have an opinion?Join the conversation!