GRA wrote: WetEV wrote:
Of course. And the answer is hydrogen, right?
Even though it is far more expensive, less convenient, and so forth. Sigh.
No, a possible
answer is H2, if they can work out all the cost issues
If wishes are fishes we would all cast nets. Hydrogen is still less convenient even after the cost problem is solved, for most driving.
Hydrogen is a battery. An expensive, inconvenient and very inefficient battery. Unlikely to improve much, as hydrogen is already widely produced as an industrial gas.
Batteries have been improving at a rapid rate since the invention of the pocket calculator.
GRA wrote:the convenience of the central point refueling system has proven adequate for the public for a century now,
Shouldn't that be in inconvenience
of a central point refueling system?
Gasoline is nasty stuff. Flammable, explosive and smelly. To avoid nastiness that near the home, an inconvenient central fueling system developed.
Before gasoline, horses were not centrally fueled.
After gasoline, BEVs will not be centrally fueled.
Unless there are strong reasons to centralize fueling, it is more convenient to fuel at home. This is just one of the many strikes against hydrogen.
WetEV wrote:The second 1% is not likely to come because of new DC QC/SC stations near weekend recreation spots. Destination chargers at expensive resorts, perhaps.
Which will continue to limit BEV markets to those people who can afford to stay at those resorts. Put QCs at them or on the way, and just as with gas stations, the type of housing you occupy is irrelevant to the type of car that you drive, allowing more people to consider BEVs.
DCQCs are expensive and inconvenient and likely to stay that way. I'd glad to see Porsche acknowledge that by pricing DCQC at a more realistic level. Sure, the cost and price might be less than gasoline in the future. But will always be less convenient. Yes, DCQCs are needed for long distance travel. For huge numbers of people to consider BEVs long term, charging at parking garages, city streets, apartment parking lots and workplace is what is needed. The convenience factor is important. Park and plug in. Unplug and leave. Almost never need to bother with lines, waiting and expensive charging.
If you had practical experience driving a BEV for an extended period of time, a lot of this would be clear and we wouldn't keep hashing over it.
WetEV wrote:Mostly likely, the second 1% will come from existing markets: continued expansion into the performance/luxury space such as the Porsche Mission E; continued expansion into the commuting market due to convenience needing almost no public charging; continued expansion into the cheap transportation segment due to increasing numbers of used EVs and likely rising gasoline prices again. The cheap transport segment is more likely to gain from utility controlled home charging.
Sure, but again, why limit your market?
Remember, I want the second 1% of market share? Again: Where are BEVs winning?
1) Performance/luxury. No subsidies needed. Win on power, smoothness, torque, low center of gravity and better design. Did I mention power and torque? That new Jag I-Pace is very pretty. It better be, Jaguar's future might just depend on it. Selling rocks in the iron age is a limited market. Buggy whips are not in much demand these days.https://www.statista.com/statistics/287 ... ed-states/
2) Convenience. For the commuter car in a two or more car household. Subsidies can phase out. Win on Park and plug in. Unplug and leave. No oil changes. Far less maintenance needed. Almost never need to bother with lines.
3) Cost. Few yet. The low end of the market is going to see only a small number of BEVs. Might change with rising gas prices.
General public. Remember, I'm mostly interested in the next 1%. The time for the general public will come, but is likely a decade or more in the future. It is really too early for the general public to care.
GRA wrote:but can't for eminently solvable practical reasons?
Make my day. Yet I doubt it. My problem is that you don't really understand the real attractions of BEVs, as you are not a long term driver of one.
GRA wrote: WetEV wrote:
GRA wrote:I believe that this cohort can make up a substantial part of the next 1%, and heaven knows we're motivated.
I doubt it. Until you buy a BEV, that is. As I pointed out, your use model is at severe cost disadvantage. Compare with a commuter: you need multiple DCQC stations that are expensive, need maintenance, need redundancy vs the commuter's wall outlet or at worst a home L2 station; you need a long range expensive BEV vs a simple and cheap shorter range BEV that has enough range for the commute plus a reserve; you have little hope of spending less money relative to gasoline vs the commuter's near break even now and likely cheaper electric commute than with $4 gasoline. You also don't have home charging, right?
Right, which is why I see eVgo's price drop (and California's recent higher gas prices; avg. $3.505 in Ca. today. Maintain that level or above for 6 months and it will start to affect people's buying decisions again) as so significant for people like me, assuming eVgo can be profitable at those prices. Of course, they still need to build public L2 chargers closer than the 2.7 miles their nearest ones are to me, instead of the 0.4 mile distant Blinks, but I can dream.
Re longer range BEVs for my demographic, I have hopes for the Kia Niro/Hundai Kona depending on the price. They lack AWD which is a problem for winter enthusiasts like me, but have the range of the Bolt, are bigger (saw my first HEV Niro the other day) and should QC faster. Electrify America, the CEC and others need to build the necessary infrastructure (been scheduled for over a year now) to allow Bay Areans to get to Yosemite easily, and southern Californians to get to Mammoth and Vegas. As CA makes up something like 45% of the U.S. PEV market and we love small CUVs, all the above factors should boost BEV sales considerably.
You don't get it still. DCQCs are always going to be more expensive and more bother than home charging. DCQC doesn't integrate well into the electric grid. While DCQC is important for long distance travel, that will likely be the LAST market for BEVs to win in.
1) Performance/luxury. BEVs are winning.
2) Convenience. With home charging, BEVs are winning.
3) Cost. BEVs will win as the cost of batteries decrease. Might be a decade out, maybe less with gasoline price spike, maybe more.
Long distance travel isn't a big win for as far out as I can see. DCQC will likely always take more time than liquid refueling. Cost will be much higher than home recharging as DCQC isn't easy on the grid. Lines, crowding at peak days, etc. At best, might match liquids fuels for people not in a hurry. Maybe. Note, however, that this is the last 10% of driving, at most.
For this market, I'd bet on aluminum - air batteries. Or a liquid electrolyte battery. Or methanol produced from hydrogen. Or maybe even hydrogen.