I think the dark times are behind us.

[DaveinOlyWA]

I think the current rate of EV sales will double each of the next 3 years before "leveling" out to a healthy double digit growth rate for at least a few decades. It is easy to see that the LEAF has been Nissan's #1 seller in the Pacific Northwest this Spring and I see no evidence that that trend will change. its easy to know how long a new LEAFer has been driving electric by simply doing a bit of math with the expiration date of the temporary sticker in the back window

 

[Deleted member 9549]

I think the current rate of EV sales will double each of the next 3 years before "leveling" out to a healthy double digit growth rate for at least a few decades. It is easy to see that the LEAF has been Nissan's #1 seller in the Pacific Northwest this Spring and I see no evidence that that trend will change. its easy to know how long a new LEAFer has been driving electric by simply doing a bit of math with the expiration date of the temporary sticker in the back window

I think it depends on battery technology. When a major improvement appears for batteries that lowers price and increases energy density, you'll see a bigger jump in sales. When you can make a car priced similar to the Leaf with a 200+ mile range, you'll see electric sales skyrocket to eventually take over ICE. Thats when early movers, such as Nissan and Tesla have the potential to clean up in the auto business.
Tesla has created an awesome brand.
I worry the Nissan is selling itself short with the battery life issues and its weak battery performance warranty. I hope EVs don't get a bad reputation like GM gave diesels.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

I think the current rate of EV sales will double each of the next 3 years before "leveling" out to a healthy double digit growth rate for at least a few decades. It is easy to see that the LEAF has been Nissan's #1 seller in the Pacific Northwest this Spring and I see no evidence that that trend will change. its easy to know how long a new LEAFer has been driving electric by simply doing a bit of math with the expiration date of the temporary sticker in the back window

I think it depends on battery technology. When a major improvement appears for batteries that lowers price and increases energy density, you'll see a bigger jump in sales. When you can make a car priced similar to the Leaf with a 200+ mile range, you'll see electric sales skyrocket to eventually take over ICE. Thats when early movers, such as Nissan and Tesla have the potential to clean up in the auto business.
Tesla has created an awesome brand.
I worry the Nissan is selling itself short with the battery life issues and its weak battery performance warranty. I hope EVs don't get a bad reputation like GM gave diesels.

my predictions are based on expected incremental battery management/chemistry improvements. I think the current EV technology is more than good enough to attract an audience. right now, its still in the "alien" technology realm. people are interested because its clear EVs are not going away (unless you got a Coda...) but they are still hesitant. this latest burst of sales will allow a greater penetration into the market that is beyond the early adopter level.

the only real failing I see here is total lack of public support in infrastructure, policy and legislation. EV'ers are still left out in the ocean holding onto a life preserver that has no rope attached. it will keep us from drowning but wont save us. we have to do that ourselves.

 

[HeyHey]

I think EVs will make tremendous strides in the next 5 years, and I predict that in 20 years EVs will make up close to half of all sales. As battery life increases and infrastructure gets better the public will be more willing to buy, and once they do they will realize it is a superior product. EVs will prove to have superior reliability and less costs of ownership. There's a reason that trains and ships are electric motors (powered by diesel or nuclear generators)....and those same reasons will prove to make EVs the superior product as well.

I may may make some people angry, but it would be a mistake for the LEAF and other EVs to continue to present EVs as the "green" choice. They should have make the case from an economic perspective, from the point of view that it decreases dependence on foreign oil, and from the position that electric motors are a superior product. It was probably a decent strategy at first to go with the environmental push, but it won't have legs. There was a core group of environmentalist/conspicuous conservationists that provided the needed sales base to get sales off the ground, but long term they won't be able to make the industry successful. In reality, every American could drive a leaf and it wouldn't do squat to prevent global warming, and presenting it as the "green" choice drives a political wedge between people when there doesn't have to be one. It is immediately off-putting to at least a third of the population and makes no difference for another third,and trying to increase public support for EV infrastructure faces an uphill battle when you've alienated such a large portion of the electorate.

When people realize that a high performance EV accelerates similarly to a Ferrari or Porsche then you've suddenly made a whole lot of people interested. When they realize you don't have to get an oil change and filter change every 3 months or 4000 miles you've suddenly attracted a whole lot of interested buyers. And when people realize that they forget what gas prices are doing then EVs will attract a whole lot of buyers. Why continue to espouse something that's not true ("you'll prevent global warming!") when there are many real reasons that should attract buyers?

 

[Stoaty]

In reality, every American could drive a leaf and it wouldn't do squat to prevent global warming, and presenting it as the "green" choice drives a political wedge between people when there doesn't have to be one.

I understand what you are trying to illustrate, but this particular statement is demonstrably false. With the current mix of electricity, driving a Leaf would definitely be cleaner (less CO2) than driving a gas powered vehicle (and that is triply true when you think of someone commuting in a Leaf instead of a large SUV). Would it be a giant leap by itself? Probably not, but it would be one component along with a cleaner grid. However, I don't disagree that selling BEV on their other merits is probably the best strategy.

 

[HeyHey]

In reality, every American could drive a leaf and it wouldn't do squat to prevent global warming, and presenting it as the "green" choice drives a political wedge between people when there doesn't have to be one.

I understand what you are trying to illustrate, but this particular statement is demonstrably false. With the current mix of electricity, driving a Leaf would definitely be cleaner (less CO2) than driving a gas powered vehicle (and that is triply true when you think of someone commuting in a Leaf instead of a large SUV). Would it be a giant leap by itself? Probably not, but it would be one component along with a cleaner grid. However, I don't disagree that selling BEV on their other merits is probably the best strategy.

You're right that it would be less CO2, but its false to think private cars play a major role in greenhouse gasses. Transportation as a whole in the US accounts for less than 30% of all greenhouse emissions, and that includes air travel, trains, ships,heavy equipment etc. Vehicles are about half of that, with personally owned automobiles being a fraction of that, so if you coud get 100% of privately driven miles in the US to convert to EV miles you save less than 10% of greenhouse gasses. Of course the resulting drop in gas prices from the sudden drop in demand would allow for millions more people India and China to drive ICE cars negating most gains.

We're not going to truly solve the greenhouse gas issue until we solve the electricity generation problem.

 

[apvbguy]

We're not going to truly solve the greenhouse gas issue until we solve the electricity generation problem.

after "they" finish solving that issue "they" can then tackle the forest fire issue, and then the biggy, volcanoes

 

[WetEV]

You're right that it would be less CO2, but its false to think private cars play a major role in greenhouse gasses. Transportation as a whole in the US accounts for less than 30% of all greenhouse emissions, and that includes air travel, trains, ships,heavy equipment etc. Vehicles are about half of that, with personally owned automobiles being a fraction of that, so if you coud get 100% of privately driven miles in the US to convert to EV miles you save less than 10% of greenhouse gasses. Of course the resulting drop in gas prices from the sudden drop in demand would allow for millions more people India and China to drive ICE cars negating most gains.

We're not going to truly solve the greenhouse gas issue until we solve the electricity generation problem.

US gasoline (almost all used in personal transport) totaled 1,089 metric tons of CO2. That is about 16% of the 6,700 metric tons the US releases per year.

But yes, electric generation is both the largest source, and is likely to grow larger as transport, home and industry is electrified.

 

[adric22]

As far as the "green" image goes, I believe it hurts sales. The analogy I like to use is that if you have two different buckets of ice-cream on the shelf and one says "fat free" which one will sell best? The other one will sell best even without people taste testing it first. Only a certain niche crowd will want the fat-free version. People look at green cars like that. They feel that the car must be lacking something in order for it to be green whether that be size, comfort, or power. Also some people just absolutely don't want to be labelled as a treehugger or environmentalist. They feel it is uncool. As such, it is very important to move beyond that crowd for higher sales volumes. ]

For a long time I sort of hung with that crowd because I as interested in electric cars. I always knew that I really didn't care that much about being a treehugger. But since I loved the technology and those were the only other ones interested, I allowed myself to be labeled as such. Eventually I came to the realization that it is OK to love electric cars without being a treehugger. In fact, I'm willing to bet that 90% of Tesla buyers are not buying the car for environmental benefits. And that is where GM and Nissan need to improve. They need to give these cars what buyers want. The easiest thing to give them is more acceleration power. Market them as high tech performance cars. They'd be flying off the shelves.

 

[RegGuheert]

I think the current rate of EV sales will double each of the next 3 years before "leveling" out to a healthy double digit growth rate for at least a few decades. It is easy to see that the LEAF has been Nissan's #1 seller in the Pacific Northwest this Spring and I see no evidence that that trend will change.

my predictions are based on expected incremental battery management/chemistry improvements. I think the current EV technology is more than good enough to attract an audience. right now, its still in the "alien" technology realm. people are interested because its clear EVs are not going away (unless you got a Coda...) but they are still hesitant. this latest burst of sales will allow a greater penetration into the market that is beyond the early adopter level.

Great posts, Dave! I fully agree with your statements.

And I think the demand will naturally migrate to the areas of the country where EVs offer the most value, like in the PNW. Very low electricity rates combined with high gasoline prices mean that the fuel expenses are much lower than an ICE vehicle. The cool, but not too cold, climate means long battery life without too much range loss in wintertime.

Adoption elsewhere will depend on the experiences of us early adopters. As we spread our feedback to others, they will make more informed decisions than we were able to. Sales of the Nissan LEAF in Phoenix will like be muted going forward. CA is an interesting place, with high electricity costs and also very high temperatures some places, but demand for the LEAF is growing. I think the LEAF salespeople there really understand the product and their market, which helps.

Frankly, I think EVs will be very successful in rural and suburban areas throughout America where electricity costs are low and people drive a lot. Perhaps a bit more range is needed for this segment to take off.

And, of course, the market will sort out differences between different EV products. Some will succeed in some locations while others will succeed elsewhere. Many (most) will be failures in the early years as companies try to bring out products for a market they do not yet understand.

It will be interesting to see this play out!

 

[CMYK4Life]

As far as the "green" image goes, I believe it hurts sales. The analogy I like to use is that if you have two different buckets of ice-cream on the shelf and one says "fat free" which one will sell best? The other one will sell best even without people taste testing it first. Only a certain niche crowd will want the fat-free version. People look at green cars like that. They feel that the car must be lacking something in order for it to be green whether that be size, comfort, or power. Also some people just absolutely don't want to be labelled as a treehugger or environmentalist. They feel it is uncool. As such, it is very important to move beyond that crowd for higher sales volumes. ]

For a long time I sort of hung with that crowd because I as interested in electric cars. I always knew that I really didn't care that much about being a treehugger. But since I loved the technology and those were the only other ones interested, I allowed myself to be labeled as such. Eventually I came to the realization that it is OK to love electric cars without being a treehugger. In fact, I'm willing to bet that 90% of Tesla buyers are not buying the car for environmental benefits. And that is where GM and Nissan need to improve. They need to give these cars what buyers want. The easiest thing to give them is more acceleration power. Market them as high tech performance cars. They'd be flying off the shelves.

We think alike. I didnt get into this car because I am green. I almost wish the badging on the car didnt say 'zero emission' and said 'pure electic' instead.

In order for EV's to take off they need to be cars that give Americans what they have always wanted; sexy on the outside, roomy on the inside, a smooth ride, powerful, the envy of others, affordable.

 

[DanCar]

... I didnt get into this car because I am green. I almost wish the badging on the car didnt say 'zero emission' and said 'pure electic' instead.

What do you think about breathing clean air?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_emissions" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/15/study-living-near-freeway_n_462656.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In order for EV's to take off they need to be cars that give Americans what they have always wanted; sexy on the outside, roomy on the inside, a smooth ride, powerful, the envy of others, affordable.

More importantly is a cheap and safe way to get from point A to point B. Nissan Leaf with current incentives have met that criteria. At least in cold regions. (chuckle)

 

[adric22]

We think alike. I didnt get into this car because I am green. I almost wish the badging on the car didnt say 'zero emission' and said 'pure electic' instead.

Actually, I've complained about this before. And there are 2 reasons I think it is a bad way to label the car. First, of course, is because it makes it sound as if zero emissions is an important feature, or in another words and environmentalists car. But the main reason is really that people don't know what "zero emissions" even means. Plenty of people look at the car, and then ask me what kind of gas mileage it gets. If they labeled it as "electric" then I think it would be more obvious what it is.

 

[dgpcolorado]

...We think alike. I didnt get into this car because I am green. I almost wish the badging on the car didnt say 'zero emission' and said 'pure electic' instead...

While I realize that you dropped the "r" in electric, when I saw that I thought "pure eclectic", and that has a very different meaning!

I agree that the "zero emissions" badging isn't useful and something that spells out "electric" would be better. You can, if you wish, change the badging by taking off the zero emissions badges. You can even replace them with "ELECTRIC" or "100% ELECTRIC", as others have done:
Adding ELECTRIC to your Leaf

 

[Nubo]

We're not going to truly solve the greenhouse gas issue until we solve the electricity generation problem.

after "they" finish solving that issue "they" can then tackle the forest fire issue, and then the biggy, volcanoes

Are you claiming that the huge rise in atmospheric CO2 and global temperatures over the last 200 years is due to volcanic activity?

 

[apvbguy]

We're not going to truly solve the greenhouse gas issue until we solve the electricity generation problem.

after "they" finish solving that issue "they" can then tackle the forest fire issue, and then the biggy, volcanoes

Are you claiming that the huge rise in atmospheric CO2 and global temperatures over the last 200 years is due to volcanic activity?

are you claiming that it isn't part of the equation? there was a fire here that burned for months and there are varied claims about the pollution levels that it emitted
and even though they claimed the fire was a 2 month event it smoldered for a much longer time emitting massive levels of pollutants

 

[Nubo]

Are you claiming that the huge rise in atmospheric CO2 and global temperatures over the last 200 years is due to volcanic activity?

are you claiming that it isn't part of the equation? there was a fire here that burned for months and there are varied claims about the pollution levels that it emitted
and even though they claimed the fire was a 2 month event it smoldered for a much longer time emitting massive levels of pollutants

I make no such claim, however the existence of fires and volcanoes are in no way a counter-claim to the problem of man-made generation of CO2. Fires and volcanoes have existed for millions of years. The rise in CO2 and temps in recent times is a different thing.

 

[thankyouOB]

if you drive a LEAF, you are an environmentalist.
if you dont eat meat, you are a vegetarian.

some tighty-righty folks may not like to find themselves in the environmental bag, but if you drive a LEAF, you are an environmentalist.
You should get over it.

We proud and loud environmentalists should enjoy the victory and welcome them to the path of light.

 

[apvbguy]

I make no such claim, however the existence of fires and volcanoes are in no way a counter-claim to the problem of man-made generation of CO2. Fires and volcanoes have existed for millions of years. The rise in CO2 and temps in recent times is a different thing.

did I make a counter claim? or are you inserting one for me?
as for co2 levels and earth temps, they have fluctuated for as long as earth has existed, has man's impact exacerbated the changes? very possible, could the changes be from natural causes? very possible, the point is that there are no absolutes and trying to claim that there is only weakens your argument.

 

[apvbguy]

if you drive a LEAF, you are an environmentalist.
if you dont eat meat, you are a vegetarian.

some tighty-righty folks may not like to find themselves in the environmental bag, but if you drive a LEAF, you are an environmentalist.
You should get over it.

We proud and loud environmentalists should enjoy the victory and welcome them to the path of light.

many looney lefties laugh at people in EVs where would you classify them?