Mink hole, like a rat hole but much much nicer

My Nissan Leaf Forum

Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

WetEV

Well-known member
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
5,147
Location
Near Seattle, WA
GRA said:
For the general public, the value for money barrier is at least 300 and probably 350+ miles while being affordable, which is why virtually every ICE will go at least that far with no worries.

For an ICE, adding range is almost free. So ICEs will likely have more range than needed, as the marginal return of value doesn't need to be large to repay the marginal cost of a larger gas tank.

Most of the time, when comparing a BEV and an ICE with the same range, the BEV will be more convenient, as long as it has the range to be recharged only at home. For road trips, the ICE will be more convenient as fueling is faster than charging, and as there are many more gas stations than DCQCs.
 
GRA said:
WetEV said:
GRA said:
For the general public, the value for money barrier is at least 300 and probably 350+ miles while being affordable, which is why virtually every ICE will go at least that far with no worries.

For an ICE, adding range is almost free. The whole fuel tank costs a few hundred dollars, and So ICEs will likely have more range than needed, as the marginal return of value doesn't need to be large to repay the marginal cost of a larger gas tank.


More range than needed as determined by whom?

Distribution of customers wants and needs.

Incremental cost of adding 1 mile of range to an ICE is tiny, less than a dollar. So if the manufacturer is economically efficient, they add range until the marginal value added is roughly equal to the marginal cost of adding range. As the marginal cost is tiny, the equilibrium will be out where the marginal value added is tiny. Only a few people care a little about adding a mile of range to a 250 mile range ICE. But that's enough.

A BEV has different economics. Adding range isn't almost free, so BEVs are likely to have lower ranges than ICEs. Even after they have almost totally displaced ICEs.


One extreme. For far less than the cost of a LEAF battery, I know someone that says he put tanks* in his pickup so he could drive coast to coast without refueling assuming EPA MPG. That is of course without pulling a trailer, which halves the MPG, which he usually does. Or the speed he typically drives, which reduces the MPG as well. I suspect the truck wouldn't get the full EPA MPG with the extra 100 gallons of diesel as well, even if driven sanely. Everyone has to pee multiple times on a 48 hour drive, which is how long it would take at 60MPH, about the speed you would need to drive to make it without a fuel stop. Not to mention sleep and other human needs. There is almost no value to this range for the vast majority of people.

*(replaced the main tank with a larger one, and added an extra tank. Total cost was ~$2000 in parts)

Almost no one wants 2900 EPA miles of range. If more than a tiny number did, you could buy it from the factory. It would probably add a few hundred dollars to the price.

My neighbors in Massachusetts. They had driven once to Springfield MA. That's about 70 miles one way, 140 miles round trip. What's the actual value to them of the difference between a 200 mile BEV and a 400 mile BEV? PDC to zero, eh?

My father recently bought a 40kWh LEAF. He didn't see the value of the larger battery. His longest drive anymore is about 50 miles round trip, from one side of Denver to the other.

The other extreme. My grandparents never left a small town in the last 20 years of their life. My grandfather drove a few blocks to the grocery story and a few more to church. He could used a 10 mile range BEV without any impact on their life. And that's adding more for multiple trips per day, heating and cooling, capacity loss and such. The town is less than 1 mile east to west, and 1.4 miles north to south. Not a single round trip over two miles, starting from his house. People came to visit him from far away. He didn't travel anymore.
 
Did you deliberately create a topic title that would never come up in a search for a discussion like this? If so, why? Do you feel that the subject isn't useful?
 
WetEV said:
GRA said:
WetEV said:
For an ICE, adding range is almost free. The whole fuel tank costs a few hundred dollars, and So ICEs will likely have more range than needed, as the marginal return of value doesn't need to be large to repay the marginal cost of a larger gas tank.


More range than needed as determined by whom?

Distribution of customers wants and needs.

Uh huh, and the typical customer values range for convenience, flexibility and peace of mind.


WetEV said:
Incremental cost of adding 1 mile of range to an ICE is tiny, less than a dollar. So if the manufacturer is economically efficient, they add range until the marginal value added is roughly equal to the marginal cost of adding range. As the marginal cost is tiny, the equilibrium will be out where the marginal value added is tiny. Only a few people care a little about adding a mile of range to a 250 mile range ICE. But that's enough.

A BEV has different economics. Adding range isn't almost free, so BEVs are likely to have lower ranges than ICEs. Even after they have almost totally displaced ICEs.


Yes, the incremental cost of more range in an ICE is small, unlike a BEV, but it's not zero. However, manufacturers have almost every reason to minimize the size of the tank in an ICE,. as it boosts internal pax/cargo capacity, reduces price (and fairly minimally, weight), and makes protection in crashes easier. But there's one overwhelming reason why they don't do that, and that's because the majority of their customers demand more range, not less. How do you think they settled on 300+ miles in the first place? Or look at this recent J.D. Power survey:

. . . Following are key findings about battery-electric vehicles:

Mobility Confidence Index remains neutral for battery-electric vehicles: With an overall score of 55, confidence about the future of battery-electric vehicles remains neutral. Attributes scoring lowest include likelihood of purchasing an electric vehicle and reliability of electric compared to gas-powered vehicles.

Challenges for acceptance: Industry experts say that consumer affordability and trust remain the top challenges for battery-electric vehicle acceptance. They also recognize that the cost to produce electric vehicles and the development of a charging infrastructure are critical challenges that must be addressed.

EV ownership affects battery-electric vehicle purchase consideration: More than half (60%) of those who have owned a battery-electric vehicle are “extremely likely” or “very likely” to repurchase a similar vehicle. Conversely, 59% of those who have never been in such a vehicle are “not too likely” or “not at all likely” to purchase or lease one. However, more than three-fourths (77% of owners and 76% with no experience) say tax credits or subsidies would factor into their purchase decision. J.D. Power also noted that a mere 4% of respondents have owned a battery-electric vehicle while 68% say they have never been in a battery-electric vehicle.

Pros and cons: Nearly two-thirds (63%) of respondents say battery-electric vehicles are better for the environment. Half of respondents also believe the cost of charging compared with the cost of gas will be advantageous. However, 65% are concerned about the availability of charging stations. More than half (60%) of respondents are concerned about driving range, with 76% of those with no battery-electric vehicle experience expecting vehicles to have a driving range of 300 miles or more. . . .
https://www.greencarcongress.com/2019/10/20191023-jdp.html


These survey results are quite typical of the general public. Here's another:
. . . When Autolist asked consumers for the minimum range they’d accept in a $35,000 electric vehicle, the leading answer was “between 250 and 300 miles”—stipulations perhaps most closely met by the Hyundai Kona Electric, with its $37,995 base price and 258-mile EPA-rated range. The Chevrolet Bolt EV and Kia Niro EV are also close to meeting those expectations.

But when Autolist asked the same about a $70,000 EV, the most common response was “more than 500 miles. . . .”

There’s a riptide beneath these impressions, and that’s age. The survey found a direct and pronounced correlation between age and the importance of EV range. For instance, 32 percent of those 18-23 years old listed range among the top three avoidance issues, while for those over 76 years old it was in the top three for 60 percent. Autolist reports that there was a similar trendline created between age and the importance of the charging network, although that one had an inflection point around age 45. . . .
https://www.greencarreports.com/new...-infrastructure-sum-up-why-shoppers-avoid-evs


It seems that consumers who know how expensive BEV batteries are may be willing (for now) to accept a bit less range, but they obviously would want the same range as in a luxury vehicle; they just know they can't afford it even if it were available. Meanwhile, Toyota runs TV ads touting their various HEV models with ranges of 500, 600 or 700 miles. If no one cared, why would they be spending money promoting this? They could build a Prius with a half-size tank, and plenty of PHEV basic conversions like the Fusion & C-Max Energis/Subaru Crosstrek HEV wouldn't need to have their cargo or passenger space compromised.

The age trends should also be taken into consideration with who's buying cars (in th U.S.) now, and that's predominantly older buyers: https://www.mynissanleaf.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=30575#p572151

<Snip anecdotal accounts of extreme ends of range needs or more importantly, wants. FWIW, my dad had a 25 gal. aux. tank dealer-installed in the trunk of his '76 Peugeot 504D, which added to the 15 gal. standard tank gave that car a highway range of 1,200 miles. The reason? He was concerned about running out of diesel on a road trip if truck stops wouldn't serve him - at the time, few gas stations sold diesel, and IIRR there was an issue of the price at truck stops w/wo tax, plus the quantity of fuel was so low that many truck stops didn't want to have space taken up by cars. When you bought the car Peugeot gave you a book that listed all the gas stations that sold diesel in the U.S. - think of it as a pre-internet version of Plugshare).

Besides, he drove a truck for a living and AFAICT had a cast-iron ass and a huge bladder, because on a trip he stopped for my needs or the car's, not his. I seem to have inherited some of that, or maybe the cars I drive now just have generally better seats: the '65 Impala's were awful, but his Peugeot was just about the most comfortable riding car I've ever been in, with seats that were light years ahead of the Impala's and would match up pretty well with some of the best today. A terrifically comfortable suspension too, with a soft compression stroke and a firm rebound on the shocks, although like most French cars of the era with that combo and no anti-roll bars it "cornered on its door handles".>
 
ICE's with 300 mile + ranges are an artifact of the Seventies gas shortages. Spending hours waiting in line for gas that you can only buy every other day changes your mind on how big the gas tank should be! Prior to then most cars only went a couple of hundred miles between fill ups. I drove a 65 Buick with a 445 CI engine that would pass anything except a gas station. 25 gal tank and 8 miles to the gallon. I later owned a Corvair that had a 12 gal tank and got 18 m/gal. Then a Pinto with another 12 gal tank and 21 mpg. By the late 70's though gas tanks got noticeably larger. Nobody wanted to have to fill up more than once a week if they had to spend an hour in line to get gas, so gas tanks got larger.

People got used to larger tanks and the convenience of filling up once every week or two. It was never about how far you could go at one time but rather how long you could go between fill ups. With BEV's and home charging, that changes. If you can fill up every night while you sleep, absolute range is a non-issue unless you exceed the battery's capability on a regular basis. The biggest reason for a larger battery is to limit the number of charge cycles and lower the stress during discharge.
 
johnlocke said:
With BEV's and home charging, that changes. If you can fill up every night while you sleep, absolute range is a non-issue unless you exceed the battery's capability on a regular basis. The biggest reason for a larger battery is to limit the number of charge cycles and lower the stress during discharge.
Yet, judging by how the Model 3 is decimating everyone else in US EV sales at https://insideevs.com/news/373812/ev-sales-scorecard-september-2019/, I doubt it's because of what you list as the "biggest reason".

FWIW, someone I know at my work used to lease a 24 kWh Leaf. IIRC, her commute is ~30 to 35 miles each way, almost all highway. To make it comfortably, she had charge on both ends (at home and my work). Charging is free at my work. Leaf went back at end of lease and she got a Bolt pretty early on. She doesn't need to charge quite as often now and she can limit her charging to just free charging at work.
 
LeftieBiker said:
Did you deliberately create a topic title that would never come up in a search for a discussion like this? If so, why? Do you feel that the subject isn't useful?
Not all discussions need to be easily searchable.
Not all problems have technical solutions.
 
GRA said:
WetEV said:
if the manufacturer is economically efficient, they add range until the marginal value added is roughly equal to the marginal cost of adding range.


Yes, the incremental cost of more range in an ICE is small, unlike a BEV, but it's not zero. However, manufacturers have almost every reason to minimize the size of the tank in an ICE,. as it boosts internal pax/cargo capacity, reduces price (and fairly minimally, weight), and makes protection in crashes easier. But there's one overwhelming reason why they don't do that, and that's because the majority of their customers demand more range, not less. How do you think they settled on 300+ miles in the first place? Or look at this recent J.D. Power survey:

Missed the point again, didn't you?

Consider if the market was exactly divided between ICE and BEV.

BEVs would have shorter ranges than ICEs. Why? It is easier to add range to an ICE.

Half of the people would be OK with the BEV range, and like the advantages of a BEV.

Half of the people would rather have more range, faster fueling and be willing pay more for fueling, pay more for maintenance, and so on.

If you are waiting for the BEV range to exceed an ICE range for market crossover, you will wait too long.

J.D. Power or any other survey is going to tell you that 98% of people are not buying BEVs today. Oh Duh. And two years ago that was 99%. And five years ago that was 99.5%. Didn't tell you anything then, doesn't tell you anything now.
 
Don't forget that buying decisions are seldom rational. For example, LED lightbulbs are much cheaper in the long run than standard incandescent lightbulbs but try selling that to the average American consumer. There are countless other examples.
 
goldbrick said:
Don't forget that buying decisions are seldom rational. For example, LED lightbulbs are much cheaper in the long run than standard incandescent lightbulbs but try selling that to the average American consumer. There are countless other examples.


Having has several LED bulbs fail after less than one year (and the same thing happening with numerous fluorescents before them) I'm not sure that that's a good example...
 
cwerdna said:
johnlocke said:
With BEV's and home charging, that changes. If you can fill up every night while you sleep, absolute range is a non-issue unless you exceed the battery's capability on a regular basis. The biggest reason for a larger battery is to limit the number of charge cycles and lower the stress during discharge.
Yet, judging by how the Model 3 is decimating everyone else in US EV sales at https://insideevs.com/news/373812/ev-sales-scorecard-september-2019/, I doubt it's because of what you list as the "biggest reason".

FWIW, someone I know at my work used to lease a 24 kWh Leaf. IIRC, her commute is ~30 to 35 miles each way, almost all highway. To make it comfortably, she had charge on both ends (at home and my work). Charging is free at my work. Leaf went back at end of lease and she got a Bolt pretty early on. She doesn't need to charge quite as often now and she can limit her charging to just free charging at work.
Model 3 is being produced at 400,000 units a year. It is the most advanced EV available except for the other Teslas. Of course it outsells everything else. And by the way, the average Tesla with 150K mi. has lost 10% of it capacity and has only been charged 600-700 times. That is what the bigger battery does for you. The TMS helps as well.
 
LeftieBiker said:
goldbrick said:
Don't forget that buying decisions are seldom rational. For example, LED lightbulbs are much cheaper in the long run than standard incandescent lightbulbs but try selling that to the average American consumer. There are countless other examples.


Having has several LED bulbs fail after less than one year (and the same thing happening with numerous fluorescents before them) I'm not sure that that's a good example...

I had that problem with early units, but after a few years they got much better in both cases. I only just this year replaced CFLs in our master bath that I remodeled in 2007. I've got some of the early Philips LED bulbs here in the office that have gone many years, and a couple of generic LED porch lights that have been in continuous use for at least 5 years now. At 4 watts it's just not worth installing a photocell timer.
 
Most of the alternative lighting I have bought have worked for at least a few years, and a few bulbs for decades. The point is that I'd bet that, with the high cost of these bulbs, I have not saved any money at all in the 30 years I've been using them, because of the ones that failed early. I've only saved some electricity.
 
johnlocke said:
And by the way, the average Tesla with 150K mi. has lost 10% of it capacity and has only been charged 600-700 times. That is what the bigger battery does for you. The TMS helps as well.
Not many Teslas have made it to 150K miles. Of those that have, I'd wager that at least 25 to 30% aren't on their original packs. It seems pretty often that something goes wrong inside them that causes them to be replaced.
 
cwerdna said:
johnlocke said:
And by the way, the average Tesla with 150K mi. has lost 10% of it capacity and has only been charged 600-700 times. That is what the bigger battery does for you. The TMS helps as well.
Not many Teslas have made it to 150K miles. Of those that have, I'd wager that at least 25 to 30% aren't on their original packs. It seems pretty often that something goes wrong inside them that causes them to be replaced.
I'll take that bet. Go find some real numbers to back up that statement.
 
WetEV said:
GRA said:
WetEV said:
if the manufacturer is economically efficient, they add range until the marginal value added is roughly equal to the marginal cost of adding range.


Yes, the incremental cost of more range in an ICE is small, unlike a BEV, but it's not zero. However, manufacturers have almost every reason to minimize the size of the tank in an ICE,. as it boosts internal pax/cargo capacity, reduces price (and fairly minimally, weight), and makes protection in crashes easier. But there's one overwhelming reason why they don't do that, and that's because the majority of their customers demand more range, not less. How do you think they settled on 300+ miles in the first place? Or look at this recent J.D. Power survey:

Missed the point again, didn't you?


Nope, you did, See below.


WetEV said:
Consider if the market was exactly divided between ICE and BEV.

BEVs would have shorter ranges than ICEs. Why? It is easier to add range to an ICE.

Half of the people would be OK with the BEV range, and like the advantages of a BEV.

Half of the people would rather have more range, faster fueling and be willing pay more for fueling, pay more for maintenance, and so on.

If you are waiting for the BEV range to exceed an ICE range for market crossover, you will wait too long.

J.D. Power or any other survey is going to tell you that 98% of people are not buying BEVs today. Oh Duh. And two years ago that was 99%. And five years ago that was 99.5%. Didn't tell you anything then, doesn't tell you anything now.


The market isn't exactly divided between BEVs and ICEs, and that's the point. Why not? Why has the percentage of PEVs, and particularly BEVs increased (ignoring any changes in the level of subsidies and mandates)? Because semi-affordable BEV range has increased 3-fold since they were introduced, but it's still not enough to satisfy the mass market, especially at current prices. Just to pound that home, here's a quote from the MIT study I just started a topic on:

. . . Several factors influence an individual’s decision to adopt an alternative fuel vehicle, such as a battery electric vehicle. The researchers found that the most important, interrelated factors that impact alternative vehicle adoption include cost, driving range, and charging convenience.

They concluded that as production volumes increase, battery costs and the purchase price of electric vehicles will decrease, which will in turn drive sales. Improved batteries would extend the vehicle range, reinforcing the attractiveness of alternative fuel vehicles to consumers.


While accepting that the surveys are correct, you are ignoring the reasons given in the surveys for the % to be so low. After all, if BEVs could satisfy mass market requirements now at a comparable price to ICEs, they wouldn't be sub-2% of the market (IIRR, PEVs as a whole are at 2.3%), they'd be at 15-25% and on their way to near universal use (assuming battery production could meet demand). The surveys all say plenty of people would like to buy one, but when it comes time to buy a new car we know the vast majority choose not to, for the same three reasons given consistently over the years in every survey, as above.
 
WetEV said:
Consider if the market was exactly divided between ICE and BEV.

The market isn't exactly divided between BEVs and ICEs, and that's the point.[/quote]

So?

You are failing to even bother to "consider if".

Why?

OK, you have as a fact that hydrogen fuel cells are the future... But what if they are not?

Stretch your brain a little bit and consider alternatives.
 
https://energy.mit.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Insights-into-Future-Mobility.pdf

The global stock of EVs is likewise projected to
grow significantly and at a much faster rate than
the global LDV stock: from about 1 million EVs in
2015 to 585–825 million EVs in 2050 depending
on the scenario modeled (Figure 2.3).

Notice that growing faster is about the best that can happen because of the battery supply issue. This study predicts 50% EVs by about 2050.
 
WetEV said:
GRA said:
WetEV said:
Consider if the market was exactly divided between ICE and BEV.

The market isn't exactly divided between BEVs and ICEs, and that's the point.

So?

You are failing to even bother to "consider if".

Why?

OK, you have as a fact that hydrogen fuel cells are the future... But what if they are not?

Stretch your brain a little bit and consider alternatives.


I've considered numerous alternatives, HEVs, PHEVs, BEV, FCEVs, PHFCEVs, Biofuels, a transition to AV MaaS, urban re-design to reduce the need for cars, etc. A combination of some/all of these will be necessary.


OK, you have as a fact that hydrogen fuel cells are the future... But what if they are not?


Please point to where I've ever claimed that H2 FCEVs (or any other tech) are the certain future. I've repeatedly denied that any one tech is likely to solve all the problems. I've stated that FCEVs are one of a range of potential solutions to the problems, if the issue of sustainable H2 production costs can be worked out and it can be provided in the necessary volumes. Pretty much the exact same thing I've said about BEVs and biofuels (or nukes FTM), but what I've never said about any of them is that their ultimate success is guaranteed or that any of them will become the universal answer. If you contend that I have, you should have no problem finding a quote given all I've psoted onthe subject over the years.

What I have said, repeatedly, is that we should proceed on as many tracks as possible that have a reasonable chance of meeting some or all of our post-fossil fuel need in the shortest possible time frame, while accepting that we will undoubtedly go down some dead ends and some money and time will be wasted. My sig puts it more succinctly, "Copper shot, not silver bullets".
 
WetEV said:
https://energy.mit.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Insights-into-Future-Mobility.pdf

The global stock of EVs is likewise projected to
grow significantly and at a much faster rate than
the global LDV stock: from about 1 million EVs in
2015 to 585–825 million EVs in 2050 depending
on the scenario modeled (Figure 2.3).

Notice that growing faster is about the best that can happen because of the battery supply issue. This study predicts 50% EVs by about 2050.


Uh huh, so only some fraction of the market even then in one particular scenario, but then they cover more than one and a mix of possible actions that might occur, because (to quote the great Yogi), "it's tough to make predictions, especially about the future". As the report puts it (making essentially the same point I did in my immediately preceding post):
“Insights into Future Mobility,” a multidisciplinary report released by the MIT Energy Initiative (MITEI), explores how individual travel decisions will be shaped by complex interactions between technologies, markets, business models, government policies, and consumer preferences—and the potential consequences as personal mobility undergoes tremendous changes in the years ahead.


Do you see any implication in the above that one EV tech is a guaranteed winner regardless of any of the other changes in other areas which may take place, and we should put all of our eggs in that basket? I sure don't. Uncertainty rules.

While I'm at it, here's an LA Times article from September:
Electric vehicle sales are up sharply in California, mostly due to Tesla
https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2019-09-10/ev-electric-car-sales-california-tesla

Sales of new electric vehicles in California shot up 63.7% in the first half of the year, to 51,750 units, largely on the strength of the Tesla Model 3.

But that doesn’t mean a golden age of electric vehicles has dawned. Pure electric cars still total only 5.5% of California car sales. Consumers, for the most part, are shrugging at EV offerings from car companies not named Tesla. And Tesla sales could be topping out.

“California is the largest green market in the country,” said Jessica Caldwell, market analyst at Edmunds. The state accounts for nearly half of the 105,472 pure EVs sold nationwide. “But EVs are still a tough market, even in California.”

Dealers sold nearly 950,000 new automobiles statewide in the first six months of 2019, according to the California New Car Dealers Assn. About 13% of them were “electrified” in some form — pure EV, hybrid or plug-in hybrid.

Practically all the rest run on internal combustion engines, the vast majority on gasoline. Gasoline car sales have fallen 7.3% in California thus far this year, partly because of electrified competition and partly because auto sales nationally (and internationally) have entered a cyclical downturn of yet-unknown severity.

Statewide sales of new hybrid cars, which run mainly on gasoline with an electric battery boost and don’t need to be plugged in, rose 22.1% in the first half, to 48,861 vehicles. Plug-in hybrids, which can run on battery power for a few dozen miles before having to switch to internal combustion, plummeted 28.5%, to 35,500 vehicles — in part, analysts have said, because consumers recoiled from the latest design of the plug-in hybrid leader, the Toyota Prius Prime.

Without Tesla, pure EV sales would be limp. About 33,000 Model 3s were sold in California in the first half. The next-highest seller was Chevrolet’s Bolt EV, at 4,482 cars, followed by the Tesla Model X (3,690) and the Tesla Model S (3,390.) The Nissan Leaf sold 2,034 units.

Electric car buyers “don’t seem to be EV fans, they seem to be Tesla fans,” Caldwell said. “It’s been really hard for any other company to crack the code of what people want in an EV. . . .”

One reason for the slow transition is cost. Batteries remain expensive, and EVs generally cost more. The base price of a gasoline-powered Hyundai Kona compact SUV, for instance, is $18,740; the all-electric version is $36,950, before government incentives. Other barriers: range anxiety and a shortage of public charging options. . . .
 
Back
Top