GRA
Posts: 7361
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Toyota Mirai Fuel Cell

Wed Sep 20, 2017 6:11 pm

OT, but since there's been so much discussion here's the latest Morgan Stanley estimate of BEV-ICE initial cost parity, via IEVS:
Morgan Stanley Says EVs Will Reach Price Parity With ICE By 2025
http://insideevs.com/morgan-stanley-evs-price-parity-ice-2025/

Electric cars still have a long way to go before they can be considered anywhere close to mainstream. In most areas, EV market saturation is only at 1-2 percent. Though it’s going to take a long time before this percent becomes truly measurable (in most areas), a few factors can accelerate the adoption at a much quicker rate.

Now that EV range is slowly becoming less of a contributing factor, and this stands to change drastically in the coming years, the number one factor inhibiting EV segment growth is arguably cost. People just aren’t going to buy an electric vehicle if it costs significantly more. This is especially true in an economy where gas prices are down and have been for some time. But, what if EVs were priced the same as ICE cars?

Some would argue that certain EVs have already reached price parity with gas cars if you factor in the savings on gas and maintenance, especially for those that are able to recover the entire U.S. federal EV tax rebate. Others still believe that an EV just plain costs more. Unfortunately, we live in a society in which up front costs mean a whole lot more than long term costs. Financing some ~$40,000 and then waiting for the rebate (which many people can’t get because they don’t have the tax liability) results in a high monthly payment.

People can get an ICE car cheap and have a low monthly payment, so filling the car with gas doesn’t put a huge dent in their wallet. Even if over the long term, once sitting down and figuring out the cost of gas and maintenance, they’d end up spending more, but to many, it doesn’t matter (and many people are just unwilling to do the math). This is not unlike people putting a major purchase on a credit card and paying small payments over time. They can afford the payments, even though over the life of the balance they will pay substantially more due to interest. So until EVs reach point-of-sale price parity with ICE vehicles, widespread adoption will be far off. . . .

Morgan Stanley believes that this initial price parity is not that far away. If the firm is right with their estimates, this can only be amazing news for the EV segment. The research says that we will see about one billion EVs on the road by 2050 (via Electrek):

    “We have modelled the global car fleet out to 2050. We see global car sales growing by 50% to over 130 million a year, and expect battery electric vehicles to make up 80% of global sales by 2050. Looking at the global passenger car fleet as a whole, BEVs make up 7% of a growing fleet by 2030 in our base case, rising to 24% by 2040 and 57% by 2050. . . .”

    Our modelling of an illustrative OEM transition from ICE to BEV drivetrain suggests that price and volume pressures could push down ICE profitability sharply from 2021, as new BEV products cannibalise sales and pricing power, with potential for losses from 2028. BEV losses peak in our model in 2023 before production ramps on new model launches. The range of profitability outcomes is wide.”

Naturally, this forecast like all others should be taken with as many or few grains of salt as you feel appropriate.
Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'. Copper shot, not Silver bullets.

User avatar
RegGuheert
Posts: 5545
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 4:12 am
Delivery Date: 16 Mar 2012
Leaf Number: 5926
Location: Northern VA

Re: Toyota Mirai Fuel Cell

Thu Sep 21, 2017 7:48 am

GRA wrote:OT, but since there's been so much discussion here's the latest Morgan Stanley estimate of BEV-ICE initial cost parity, via IEVS:
Feel free to link to the previous discussion in this thread concerning "initial cost parity". I'm not aware of any such discussion. Rather, the discussion has been around TCO. As WetEV said on Monday:
WetEV wrote:You are moving the finish line.
Again.

As WetEV has already pointed out, BEVs already offer better TCO than ICEVs TODAY for some applications. I will point out that with subsidies they also offer better initial cost for some buyers TODAY. If BEVs achieve unsubsidized "initial cost parity" with ICEVs in 2025, then ICEVs will offer lower TCO ONLY in rare circumstances. At that time, nearly all buyers of ICEVs will have to justify their higher costs based on something other than initial or total costs. I have no doubt that you will be a member of that group. After all, you have been here for nearly six years feigning to want to purchase a BEV or PHEV, but we are all now aware the main thing you do here is dissuade others from purchasing BEVs by constantly pointing out their negative aspects.
GRA wrote:And the sooner I can put a "NOPEC" bumper sticker on my car and flip the bird to the OPEC despot of the month, the happier I'll be.
On top of that, your signature reads, in part,
GRA wrote:The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'.
Yet you refuse to make the move to renewable energy and/or electric propulsion.

OTOH, many here share those two sentiments of yours which I quoted above. But instead of those being empty words to most us here, we have chosen to act on our convictions and help to propel the "good enough" technologies embodied in grid-tied photovoltaics and BEVs from niche status to mainstream.

Of course all of this is completely OT, as you said, since this thread is about a completely impractical concept: H2 FCVs for consumer applications. There is virtually NO POSSIBILITY that H2 FCVs will achieve initial or total cost parity with BEVs, ever. This is true even with the massively-wasteful government subsidies for H2 refueling infrastructure that you support.

BEV: $30,000 initial investment for the vehicle, $4000 initial investment for rooftop photovoltaics for lifetime refueling source and $1000 initial investment for refueling equipment (all unsubsidized numbers).
H2 FCV: $130,000 initial investment for the vehicle, $12,000 initial investment for photovoltaics for lifetime refueling source and $250,000 initial investment for refueling equipment (all unsubsidized numbers).

Unsubsidized, an H2 FCV costs 11X what a BEV costs for home-based refueling. While I realize that you have chosen to live where all these options are impractical (not impossible), many people can afford to purchase a BEV and provide the fuel for it at home TODAY. Many of us already do that today. This will quickly become a popular option for more and more Americans as the technology improves. Not so for H2 FCVs.
RegGuheert
2011 Leaf SL Demo vehicle
2011 miles at purchase. 10K miles on Apr 14, 2013. 20K miles (55.7Ah) on Aug 7, 2014, 30K miles (52.0Ah) on Dec 30, 2015, 40K miles (49.8Ah) on Feb 8, 2017.
Enphase Inverter Measured MTBF: M190, M215, M250, S280

lorenfb
Posts: 1310
Joined: Tue Dec 17, 2013 10:53 pm
Delivery Date: 22 Nov 2013
Leaf Number: 416635
Location: SoCal

Re: Toyota Mirai Fuel Cell

Thu Sep 21, 2017 9:54 am

GRA wrote:OT, but since there's been so much discussion here's the latest Morgan Stanley estimate of BEV-ICE initial cost parity, via IEVS:
Morgan Stanley Says EVs Will Reach Price Parity With ICE By 2025
http://insideevs.com/morgan-stanley-evs-price-parity-ice-2025/


The above has overlooked one of the key factors for the overall adoption of any AFV, i.e. the transition must
be essentially 'transparent' to the consumer. Presently, as an example the transition to a HICEV (hybrid ICEV)
requires no changes to the consumer's lifestyle, e.g. no mods to a home electrical system, no need to locate
charging stations when planning a trip, a lengthy energy 'refill' time, etc. A consumer can generally calculate
a simple cost-benefit analysis of buying a HICEV or another ICEV without having to consider those other factors
in the purchasing decision, e.g. most consumers rarely do a TCO when purchasing a vehicle. The extent of their
analysis basically ends at the vehicle's initial cost and its MPG. Therefore, trying to 'guess' at a AFV's significant
transition/acceptance point is naive without integrating the intangible factors related to the consumer's
purchase decision process.

WetEV
Posts: 1738
Joined: Fri May 04, 2012 8:25 am
Delivery Date: 16 Feb 2014
Location: Near Seattle, WA

Re: Toyota Mirai Fuel Cell

Fri Sep 22, 2017 5:51 am

lorenfb wrote:The above has overlooked one of the key factors for the overall adoption of any AFV, i.e. the transition must
be essentially 'transparent' to the consumer.


A BEV as a second commuting car or other short range trips is better than 'transparent'. You drive to work, you drive home and plug in. No more visits to the gas station.
WetEV
#49
Most everything around here is wet during the rainy season. And the rainy season is long.
2012 Leaf SL Red (Totaled)
2014 Leaf SL Red

Zythryn
Posts: 941
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2010 4:49 am

Re: Toyota Mirai Fuel Cell

Fri Sep 22, 2017 9:08 am

lorenfb wrote:
The above has overlooked one of the key factors for the overall adoption of any AFV, i.e. the transition must
be essentially 'transparent' to the consumer. Presently, as an example the transition to a HICEV (hybrid ICEV)
requires no changes to the consumer's lifestyle, e.g. no mods to a home electrical system, no need to locate
charging stations when planning a trip, a lengthy energy 'refill' time, etc....


That is not how transition to a disruptive technology works.
Horse drawn carriages to cars had dramatic changes to lifestyle. The change from corded phones to cell phones was certainly not transparent.
The change happens because the new tech is more convenient or just plain better for some people. The larger the group of people is, the faster the transition will happen.
Previous owner of Prius, Volt & Leaf
Current owner of Model S
http://www.netzeromn.com

lorenfb
Posts: 1310
Joined: Tue Dec 17, 2013 10:53 pm
Delivery Date: 22 Nov 2013
Leaf Number: 416635
Location: SoCal

Re: Toyota Mirai Fuel Cell

Fri Sep 22, 2017 9:59 am

Zythryn wrote:
lorenfb wrote:
The above has overlooked one of the key factors for the overall adoption of any AFV, i.e. the transition must
be essentially 'transparent' to the consumer. Presently, as an example the transition to a HICEV (hybrid ICEV)
requires no changes to the consumer's lifestyle, e.g. no mods to a home electrical system, no need to locate
charging stations when planning a trip, a lengthy energy 'refill' time, etc....


That is not how transition to a disruptive technology works.
Horse drawn carriages to cars had dramatic changes to lifestyle. The change from corded phones to cell phones was certainly not transparent.
The change happens because the new tech is more convenient or just plain better for some people. The larger the group of people is, the faster the transition will happen.


Right, the examples you mention provide significant benefits without requiring lifestyle changes or re-orientations,
i.e. benefits to a change far outweigh the negatives. That's presently not the case for an EV versus an ICEV.
The present marginal EV growth rate results from the fact the majority of consumers don't perceive significant
benefits to offset the EV negatives. In my situation, I'm willing to accept all the negatives associated with owning
an EV, presently most to whom I speak with and ask questions are not. To consider an EV as a "disruptive technology"
as was the cell phone is naive. Besides, there're no significant break-thru technologies in a basic EV. Automotive OEMs
will slowly transition to changing the 'mix' between ICEVs and AFVs as the consumer's perceived values change.

rcm4453
Posts: 168
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 5:35 pm
Leaf Number: 304133
Location: Wayzata, MN

Re: Toyota Mirai Fuel Cell

Fri Sep 22, 2017 5:35 pm

lorenfb wrote:
Zythryn wrote:
lorenfb wrote:
The above has overlooked one of the key factors for the overall adoption of any AFV, i.e. the transition must
be essentially 'transparent' to the consumer. Presently, as an example the transition to a HICEV (hybrid ICEV)
requires no changes to the consumer's lifestyle, e.g. no mods to a home electrical system, no need to locate
charging stations when planning a trip, a lengthy energy 'refill' time, etc....


That is not how transition to a disruptive technology works.
Horse drawn carriages to cars had dramatic changes to lifestyle. The change from corded phones to cell phones was certainly not transparent.
The change happens because the new tech is more convenient or just plain better for some people. The larger the group of people is, the faster the transition will happen.


Right, the examples you mention provide significant benefits without requiring lifestyle changes or re-orientations,
i.e. benefits to a change far outweigh the negatives. That's presently not the case for an EV versus an ICEV.
The present marginal EV growth rate results from the fact the majority of consumers don't perceive significant
benefits to offset the EV negatives. In my situation, I'm willing to accept all the negatives associated with owning
an EV, presently most to whom I speak with and ask questions are not. To consider an EV as a "disruptive technology"
as was the cell phone is naive. Besides, there're no significant break-thru technologies in a basic EV. Automotive OEMs
will slowly transition to changing the 'mix' between ICEVs and AFVs as the consumer's perceived values change.



Well I wouldn't necessarily say that the mainstream population likes going to the gas station to pump gas every week. I'm sure a lot of people would find plugging in at home a lot more convenient. The problem is as of today BEVs haven't reached parity with ICEVs yet, but they eventually will. Once you can buy a BEV crossover/SUV with 450 miles of range for the same price or even less then the ICEV version things will start to change. Obviously by that time charging will be faster and charging stations will be more numerous. You can't go by the BEVs of today when predicting the future outcome because for the most part they still suck (except for Tesla) compared to ICEVs to the average consumer. Most are ugly, low range and over priced, not exactly a recipe for converting ICEV drivers over!

If you could walk into a Toyota dealer and buy a RAV4 EV with 450 miles of range for $24k you'd see a lot more mainstream people converting over. If the salesman would educate the consumer on the many benefits of an EV it would help tremendously! Talk about how you never have to buy gas for it, never need to take it in for oil changes and how little maintenance it will need. Once they test drive it and see how silky smooth it drives and how quiet it is the vehicle will pretty much sell itself to the average consumer!

Zythryn
Posts: 941
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2010 4:49 am

Re: Toyota Mirai Fuel Cell

Fri Sep 22, 2017 6:49 pm

lorenfb wrote:
Zythryn wrote:
lorenfb wrote:
The above has overlooked one of the key factors for the overall adoption of any AFV, i.e. the transition must
be essentially 'transparent' to the consumer. Presently, as an example the transition to a HICEV (hybrid ICEV)
requires no changes to the consumer's lifestyle, e.g. no mods to a home electrical system, no need to locate
charging stations when planning a trip, a lengthy energy 'refill' time, etc....


That is not how transition to a disruptive technology works.
Horse drawn carriages to cars had dramatic changes to lifestyle. The change from corded phones to cell phones was certainly not transparent.
The change happens because the new tech is more convenient or just plain better for some people. The larger the group of people is, the faster the transition will happen.


Right, the examples you mention provide significant benefits without requiring lifestyle changes or re-orientations,
i.e. benefits to a change far outweigh the negatives. That's presently not the case for an EV versus an ICEV.
The present marginal EV growth rate results from the fact the majority of consumers don't perceive significant
benefits to offset the EV negatives. In my situation, I'm willing to accept all the negatives associated with owning
an EV, presently most to whom I speak with and ask questions are not. To consider an EV as a "disruptive technology"
as was the cell phone is naive. Besides, there're no significant break-thru technologies in a basic EV. Automotive OEMs
will slowly transition to changing the 'mix' between ICEVs and AFVs as the consumer's perceived values change.


The change from a horse drawn carriage to an auto was a HUGE change.
The changes to cell phones much less so.
For some people, the changes required going from gas to EVs has been nothing but positive.
For others, not so much. The only question is, how many people find it advantageous to make the switch?
Previous owner of Prius, Volt & Leaf
Current owner of Model S
http://www.netzeromn.com

smkettner
Posts: 6997
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 10:13 pm
Delivery Date: 26 Feb 2014
Location: Orange County, CA

Re: Toyota Mirai Fuel Cell

Fri Sep 22, 2017 7:28 pm

Trouble with Mirai... it adds nothing except higher cost.
1 bar lost at 21,451 miles, 16 months.
2 bar lost at 35,339 miles, 25 months.
LEAF traded at 45,400 miles for a RAV4-EV

GRA
Posts: 7361
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Toyota Mirai Fuel Cell

Sat Sep 23, 2017 3:35 pm

smkettner wrote:Trouble with Mirai... it adds nothing except higher cost.

With the sole major benefit compared to an ICE being zero tailpipe emissions, and as has been shown with BEVs that's not enough to get mainstream buyers to switch, given the disadvantages FCEVs (and BEVs) currently labor under. The Model 3 and maybe the LEAF 2 may get closer to mainstream acceptance, the Model 3 because it's compelling and the LEAF 2 because it's cheaper and longer-ranged than the previous generation, a better value proposition. OTOH, as the latter isn't a compelling car, it would undoubtedly be a lot more convincing to the mainstream for local utilitarian driving if it sold for $15-$20k MSRP instead of $30k. Once the subsides expire, the MSRP will certainly need to drop.
Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'. Copper shot, not Silver bullets.

Return to “Other Electric Cars & Plug-In Hybrids”