How fast can electric cars replace gas cars?

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.
joybnvds22 said:
It will take some time to do that, not all people want an EV.

EV in 2011 isn't the same as an EV today, and an EV in the future isn't the same as an EV of today.

People change as well.

Infrastructure changes. A Seattle to Boston EV trip in 2011 would have been vey slow and a real adventure, not today.

I bought a computer in 1978, not everyone wanted a computer then. Almost everyone has a smart phone and/or a tablet or a PC today.
 
GCC:
EIA projects global conventional gasoline and diesel LDV fleet will peak in 2038

https://www.greencarcongress.com/2021/10/20211027-eia.html


In the US Energy Information Administration’s (EIA’s) International Energy Outlook 2021, released earlier this month, the EIA forecast that the global light-duty vehicle (LDV) fleet will grow from 1.31 billion vehicles in 2020 to 2.21 billion vehicles by 2050. EIA projected that electric vehicles (EVs)—any LDV with a charging plug—will grow from 0.7% of the global LDV fleet in 2020 to 31% in 2050, reaching 672 million vehicles.

Significant growth in EV sales and shares of sales through the projection period results in the global conventional gasoline and diesel LDV fleet peaking in 2038 in the EIA forecast.

EIA also projects that an increase in economic activity, population, and private mobility will result in more global LDVs through 2050.

EIA projects the population of non-OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) countries will grow at more than three times the population growth rate of OECD countries and that the non-OECD motorization rate will increase from 92 vehicles per thousand people to 173 vehicles per thousand people between 2020 and 2050. The OECD countries’ motorization rate remains around 530 vehicles per thousand people through the projection period.

Because of this growth in population and motorization rates, EIA projects the number of LDVs in non-OECD countries will surpass those in OECD countries in 2025.

EIA projects EV fleet shares will reach 34% in OECD countries and 28% in non-OECD countries by 2050. Although the conventional LDV fleet peaks in 2023 for OECD countries, faster growth in the non-OECD fleet results in nearly two-thirds of light-duty EVs being in non-OECD countries by 2050.
 
I'm in considerable agreement with this ABG op-ed, at least for current BEV owners:
Rental car companies should focus on trucks, not Teslas

Drive the efficient car every day, rent the truck when you really need it

https://www.autoblog.com/2021/10/27/rent-truck-not-tesla/


There's also a Hertz commercial which I hadn't seen locally yet, showcasing the model 3s with some anonymous football player :lol:
 
Government spending is dropping per electric car sold. Why are sales rising?

5Y6S6nI.png


Source is https://www.iea.org/reports/global-ev-outlook-2021/trends-and-developments-in-electric-vehicle-markets
 
GRA said:
WetEV said:
GRA said:
Because the cars and infrastructure are improving, and the mandates are getting tighter.
Swiss have no Federal subsidies or mandates.
How big is Switzerland, and what domestic sources of energy do they have?
Vermont + New Hampshire. Mostly hydro. They make clocks and chocolates too. Any other random facts you want?

Swiss have no Federal subsidies or mandates.
 
Vermont + New Hampshire. Mostly hydro. They make clocks and chocolates too. Any other random facts you want?

And don't forget solar- in my little micro-community in Vermont there are multiple Leafs (mostly older used ones), a couple of Volts (3 actually), 2 Bolts a Tesla and a smattering of others including PHEVs, and most of the owners have installed solar panels to at least partially cover the electrical usage. Of course, solar panels in the Southwest would provide 30% more power than solar panels here but distributing the power source to where the power is getting used makes more sense than producing more power in one location and consuming it thousands of miles away.....
 
WetEV said:
GRA said:
WetEV said:
Swiss have no Federal subsidies or mandates.
How big is Switzerland, and what domestic sources of energy do they have?
Vermont + New Hampshire. Mostly hydro. They make clocks and chocolates too. Any other random facts you want?

Swiss have no Federal subsidies or mandates.


IOW, 1/10 the size of California, with no internal energy sources other than Hydro and some PV/Wind, and a high PCI.
 
Consumer is going to have a hard time ignoring EVs with million-mile batteries, and it's not long off with LFP.
 
GRA said:
WetEV said:
GRA said:
How big is Switzerland, and what domestic sources of energy do they have?
Vermont + New Hampshire. Mostly hydro. They make clocks and chocolates too. Any other random facts you want?

Swiss have no Federal subsidies or mandates.


IOW, 1/10 the size of California, with no internal energy sources other than Hydro and some PV/Wind, and a high PCI.
Did you have a point?

As electric cars get more compelling, market share is going up. Even if where EVs are not subsidized or mandated. Like Switzerland.
 
WetEV said:
GRA said:
WetEV said:
Vermont + New Hampshire. Mostly hydro. They make clocks and chocolates too. Any other random facts you want?

Swiss have no Federal subsidies or mandates.

IOW, 1/10 the size of California, with no internal energy sources other than Hydro and some PV/Wind, and a high PCI.
Did you have a point?

As electric cars get more compelling, market share is going up. Even if where EVs are not subsidized or mandated. Like Switzerland.


Sure, as the cars get better sales will grow, the question is where and how fast? Or are you claiming that because sales are growing in Switzerland without subsidies, we should get rid of them here because they're unneeded? Actually, there are subsidies, just not on the federal level, and future growth also depends on infrastructure there as it does everywhere else:
He notes that the Swiss have emerged as early adopters; distances in Switzerland are relatively short, people are ecologically aware and they have the financial means to purchase electric vehicles that are, on average, more expensive than gasoline or diesel-powered models. . . .

Meanwhile, recently Swiss cantons have offered limited tax breaks and incentives in an uncoordinated fashion with no clear federal strategy.

Environment Minister Simonetta Sommaruga recently met representatives from cantons, cities and the car and electricity industries as well as the real estate sector to discuss “more ambitious goals” for EVs and infrastructure, but nothing was decided on.

By contrast, says Bolliger: “Norway is giving money, and advantages like parking lots and bus lanes and electricity at the parking lots. I think to make going electric easier it would be good to promote electric vehicles. We see in neighbouring markets that direct subsidies to encourage people to buy electric cars is very efficient.”

Norway model?

But Martin Winder, head of transport projects at the Transport and Environment Association (VCS/ATE), believes Norway’s strategy of subsidising EVs is far too expensive - estimated to cost CHF2 billion – and unnecessary in Switzerland.

“The fact that more and more electric models are being sold shows that it’s possible to do without such a strategy,” he said.

The new CO2 law, which the Swiss will vote on June 13, contains good incentives, said Winder.

If the Swiss validate the new law, the rules will be strengthened and importers will have to sell more electric cars and economic combustion-engine vehicles,” he said.

François Launaz, president of the car importer association Auto-Schweiz, is also dubious that Norway should be a model for Switzerland.

“I think we need to remain realistic. Norway has decades of advance over all other countries. To want to impose mobility without combustion engines by 2025 in a country like Switzerland which is completely underequipped in recharging stations is utopian,” he told RTS.

“I fear a roadblock”

Charging infrastructure is regularly cited as Switzerland’s Achilles heel. The country has 5,700 public charging points dotted around cities, towns and villages. By the end of 2021, fast-charging stations should be set up at 50 motorway rest areas and at most gas stations. Federal officials say this density of charging points per vehicle is above the European average.

“We’re not doing bad, but I fear a roadblock in the coming years,” said Anthony Patt, professor of climate policy at the federal technology institute ETH Zurich.External link “The biggest factor whether someone is interested in buying an electric car in Switzerland is: ‘Can I charge this thing at home?”

He said the Swiss charging network is “pretty dense” but it’s “geared around the wrong model”.

“A lot of towns and village have tried to do their bit and created one or two spaces. That's not what people want. They are kind of useless,” he said.

Charging at home

Where Switzerland is really lagging behind, says the ETH Zurich researcher, is car owners’ ability to charge at home, whether it be in an apartment garage or on the streets where residents park overnight.

The Federal Energy Office has supported several pilot projects to install chargers at urban parking spaces in cities like Zurich and Basel. But it admits that generally “there are very few available”.

In Switzerland 57% of people rent their apartments, while 84% of Norwegians own their flats or houses. Norwegians have the ability to charge their vehicles at home which Swiss people don't.

One solution may come from Switzerland’s neighbour. Last year, Germany passed a bill giving tenants the right to install a charging station for their EV. It also made it compulsory for building owners to upgrade the wiring in the building as necessary for the chargers. This change could emerge in Switzerland, but it will be very difficult, officials say; nobody is currently lobbying for it.

“The market might fix it when it comes to chargers in buildings, but I don't see a way to deal with on-street parking unless the governments and municipalities get involved,” said Patt.


“Then again, in five to ten years technology could solve the problem. Electric cars could charge so fast and have such big batteries that essentially you treat them as a gasoline car, but we're not there yet.
https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/electric-cars-are-on-the-way--but-is-switzerland-ready-/46469024


From July, IEVS:
We thought that was pretty impressive until we saw the latest stats from Switzerland.

So far in 2021, battery-electric vehicles have captured 9.9% of the market, plug-in hybrids (PHEVs) have reached 8.3%, and hybrids have taken 20.6%. That’s a total of nearly 40% of the overall vehicle market, which is almost in the class of EV hotspots such as Norway and the Netherlands.

Switzerland has seen its EV adoption rate soar in the last year or two—the share of pure EVs went from a paltry 1.7% in 2018 to a healthy 14.3% in June 2021. The share of plug-in vehicles (EVs and plug-in hybrids) reached 23% in that month.
https://insideevs.com/news/520955/ev-40-percent-market-switzerland/

So, while BEV sales certainly increased, most of the EVs sold in in Switzerland up through June burn gas some or all of the time, despite many favorable conditions for BEVs (and one very unfavorable, the high percentage of renters).
 
GRA said:
WetEV said:
As electric cars get more compelling, market share is going up. Even if where EVs are not subsidized or mandated. Like Switzerland.
Sure, as the cars get better sales will grow, the question is where and how fast?

Where? Hard to predict, as subsidies will move sales from a country with lower subsidies to one with higher subsidies.

How fast? Battery production for cars has in the past and likely can in the future double about every two to three years. Until limits to growth are hit. If nothing else 100% of the market.



GRA said:
Or are you claiming that because sales are growing in Switzerland without subsidies, we should get rid of them here because they're unneeded?

A complex question. Electric car sales are likely to grow faster with subsidies, and matching the global subsidy level will keep the USA more in line with the global technology change in automotive. On the other hand, most EVs sold in the USA today are not eligible for the Federal tax credit. And electric car sales are likely to grow without subsidies.

The Swiss are debating it as well.

Norway model?

But Martin Winder, head of transport projects at the Transport and Environment Association (VCS/ATE), believes Norway’s strategy of subsidising EVs is far too expensive - estimated to cost CHF2 billion – and unnecessary in Switzerland.

“The fact that more and more electric models are being sold shows that it’s possible to do without such a strategy,” he said.

Possible, yes. Optimum strategy? Complex question.


GRA said:
From July, IEVS:
We thought that was pretty impressive until we saw the latest stats from Switzerland.

So far in 2021, battery-electric vehicles have captured 9.9% of the market, plug-in hybrids (PHEVs) have reached 8.3%, and hybrids have taken 20.6%. That’s a total of nearly 40% of the overall vehicle market, which is almost in the class of EV hotspots such as Norway and the Netherlands.

Switzerland has seen its EV adoption rate soar in the last year or two—the share of pure EVs went from a paltry 1.7% in 2018 to a healthy 14.3% in June 2021. The share of plug-in vehicles (EVs and plug-in hybrids) reached 23% in that month.
https://insideevs.com/news/520955/ev-40-percent-market-switzerland/


So, while BEV sales certainly increased, most of the EVs sold in in Switzerland up through June burn gas some or all of the time, despite many favorable conditions for BEVs (and one very unfavorable, the high percentage of renters).

Understand exponential growth. One doubling time before 100%, half is the new. Two doubling times, a quarter is the new. Three doubling times 12.5% is the new. Aka 87.5% old. That's most.

You have experienced this with the Internet, with mobile phones, with computers...
 
WetEV said:
GRA said:
WetEV said:
As electric cars get more compelling, market share is going up. Even if where EVs are not subsidized or mandated. Like Switzerland.
Sure, as the cars get better sales will grow, the question is where and how fast?

Where? Hard to predict, as subsidies will move sales from a country with lower subsidies to one with higher subsidies.

How fast? Battery production for cars has in the past and likely can in the future double about every two to three years. Until limits to growth are hit. If nothing else 100% of the market.


So, you agree that BEVs are still dependent on subsidies, i.e. not yet ready for prime-time? We know that the wealthy can afford whatever toys they want.


WetEV said:
GRA said:
Or are you claiming that because sales are growing in Switzerland without subsidies, we should get rid of them here because they're unneeded?

A complex question. Electric car sales are likely to grow faster with subsidies, and matching the global subsidy level will keep the USA more in line with the global technology change in automotive. On the other hand, most EVs sold in the USA today are not eligible for the Federal tax credit. And electric car sales are likely to grow without subsidies.

Most BEVs sold in the U.S. today have luxury prices, well above the level at which the general public can consider buying them.



WetEV said:
The Swiss are debating it as well.

Norway model?

But Martin Winder, head of transport projects at the Transport and Environment Association (VCS/ATE), believes Norway’s strategy of subsidising EVs is far too expensive - estimated to cost CHF2 billion – and unnecessary in Switzerland.

“The fact that more and more electric models are being sold shows that it’s possible to do without such a strategy,” he said.

Possible, yes. Optimum strategy? Complex question.


GRA said:
From July, IEVS:
We thought that was pretty impressive until we saw the latest stats from Switzerland.

So far in 2021, battery-electric vehicles have captured 9.9% of the market, plug-in hybrids (PHEVs) have reached 8.3%, and hybrids have taken 20.6%. That’s a total of nearly 40% of the overall vehicle market, which is almost in the class of EV hotspots such as Norway and the Netherlands.

Switzerland has seen its EV adoption rate soar in the last year or two—the share of pure EVs went from a paltry 1.7% in 2018 to a healthy 14.3% in June 2021. The share of plug-in vehicles (EVs and plug-in hybrids) reached 23% in that month.
https://insideevs.com/news/520955/ev-40-percent-market-switzerland/


So, while BEV sales certainly increased, most of the EVs sold in in Switzerland up through June burn gas some or all of the time, despite many favorable conditions for BEVs (and one very unfavorable, the high percentage of renters).

Understand exponential growth. One doubling time before 100%, half is the new. Two doubling times, a quarter is the new. Three doubling times 12.5% is the new. Aka 87.5% old. That's most.

You have experienced this with the Internet, with mobile phones, with computers...


None of which had or needed direct-to-consumer government subsidies or mandates; their advantages sold consumers on their value all by themselves (with the % increasing as the price dropped). PEVs stand alone in still requiring such support almost everywhere.
 
GRA said:
WetEV said:
GRA said:
Sure, as the cars get better sales will grow, the question is where and how fast?

Where? Hard to predict, as subsidies will move sales from a country with lower subsidies to one with higher subsidies.

How fast? Battery production for cars has in the past and likely can in the future double about every two to three years. Until limits to growth are hit. If nothing else 100% of the market.


So, you agree that BEVs are still dependent on subsidies, i.e. not yet ready for prime-time? We know that the wealthy can afford whatever toys they want.

No, that just shows you are write only, and never really read for meaning. You could try again. Or not bother. Suit yourself.

BEVs would likely have evolved without subsidies, but slower. Battery technology is improving, for example many lawn mowers are now battery electric. Sure, more expensive. But far less mess, needs less storage space, safer, smoother, quieter. And starts right away.

BEVs will now sell better in places with higher subsidies, but increasingly will be selling more and more everywhere. Most BEVs sold in the USA today are not subsidized. Worldwide subsidies per BEV sold is declining as sales continue to rise exponentially.

BEVs will continue to reduce in cost, increase in range, increase in reliability, increase in longevity with or without subsides. Faster with subsidies, so perhaps subsidies are still a good idea, but for a limited time.

BEVs are simpler, will be cheaper, are more convenient. In about a decade, BEVs will dominate, subsidies or no subsidies.


FCEVs are dead.

Too expensive, not only today but likely in the future. Too inconvenient. Too dependent on expensive and expansive infrastructure. I doubt if I'll ever see a FCEV anywhere close to where I live. Unless one gets into the Tacoma Car Museum.



GRA said:
WetEV said:
GRA said:
Or are you claiming that because sales are growing in Switzerland without subsidies, we should get rid of them here because they're unneeded?

A complex question. Electric car sales are likely to grow faster with subsidies, and matching the global subsidy level will keep the USA more in line with the global technology change in automotive. On the other hand, most EVs sold in the USA today are not eligible for the Federal tax credit. And electric car sales are likely to grow without subsidies.

Most BEVs sold in the U.S. today have luxury prices, well above the level at which the general public can consider buying them.

As you would expect. If you can build 2.5% of cars to be more convenient, and just nicer to drive, who would you sell them to?



GRA said:
WetEV said:
GRA said:
So, while BEV sales certainly increased, most of the EVs sold in in Switzerland up through June burn gas some or all of the time, despite many favorable conditions for BEVs (and one very unfavorable, the high percentage of renters).

Understand exponential growth. One doubling time before 100%, half is the new. Two doubling times, a quarter is the new. Three doubling times 12.5% is the new. Aka 87.5% old. That's most.

You have experienced this with the Internet, with mobile phones, with computers...


None of which had or needed direct-to-consumer government subsidies or mandates; their advantages sold consumers on their value all by themselves (with the % increasing as the price dropped). PEVs stand alone in still requiring such support almost everywhere.

Ever hear about ARPANET?

PEVs subsidies are likely mostly gone or irrelevant by 2026.


5Y6S6nI.png
 
WetEV said:
GRA said:
WetEV said:
Where? Hard to predict, as subsidies will move sales from a country with lower subsidies to one with higher subsidies.

How fast? Battery production for cars has in the past and likely can in the future double about every two to three years. Until limits to growth are hit. If nothing else 100% of the market.


So, you agree that BEVs are still dependent on subsidies, i.e. not yet ready for prime-time? We know that the wealthy can afford whatever toys they want.

No, that just shows you are write only, and never really read for meaning. You could try again. Or not bother. Suit yourself.

BEVs would likely have evolved without subsidies, but slower. Battery technology is improving, for example many lawn mowers are now battery electric. Sure, more expensive. But far less mess, needs less storage space, safer, smoother, quieter. And starts right away.

BEVs will now sell better in places with higher subsidies, but increasingly will be selling more and more everywhere. Most BEVs sold in the USA today are not subsidized. Worldwide subsidies per BEV sold is declining as sales continue to rise exponentially.

BEVs will continue to reduce in cost, increase in range, increase in reliability, increase in longevity with or without subsides. Faster with subsidies, so perhaps subsidies are still a good idea, but for a limited time.

BEVs are simpler, will be cheaper, are more convenient. In about a decade, BEVs will dominate, subsidies or no subsidies.


Sure BEVs will continue to improve, the question is will sales improve at the rate they need to reduce the size of the environmental problem we face, without subsidies. So far, the answer is no, in the U.S. and elsewhere, although if gas prices remain at their current levels for a while longer that will help the economic argument.



WetEV said:
FCEVs are dead.

Too expensive, not only today but likely in the future. Too inconvenient. Too dependent on expensive and expansive infrastructure. I doubt if I'll ever see a FCEV anywhere close to where I live. Unless one gets into the Tacoma Car Museum.


We've argued this ad nauseum so I'm not going to re-hash the same arguments again.


WetEV said:
GRA said:
WetEV said:
A complex question. Electric car sales are likely to grow faster with subsidies, and matching the global subsidy level will keep the USA more in line with the global technology change in automotive. On the other hand, most EVs sold in the USA today are not eligible for the Federal tax credit. And electric car sales are likely to grow without subsidies.

Most BEVs sold in the U.S. today have luxury prices, well above the level at which the general public can consider buying them.

As you would expect. If you can build 2.5% of cars to be more convenient, and just nicer to drive, who would you sell them to?


As long as you're comfortable only selling to that 2.5%, fine, but why do the wealthy need let alone deserve subsidies? OTOH, the most common PHEV I see (typically #3 or #4 in my occasional Friday evening commute PEV surveys, behind the Model 3 @#1, then either the Model S and/or Model Y) is the Prius Prime, which at $29,175 base MSRP + dest. is affordable by the typical new car buyer without subsidies. It's a half-assed conversion of the regular Prius, like the Fusion and C-Max Energies, but it's efficient, affordable and can eliminate 50% or more of emissions. Spending a couple thousand more will allow people to buy a PHEV like the Niro or Kona without the Prius Prime's mediocre driving dynamics and space limitations. Nicer to drive is important, but it obviously doesn't outweigh price or other factors in most people's minds (or wallets).


WetEV said:
GRA said:
WetEV said:
Understand exponential growth. One doubling time before 100%, half is the new. Two doubling times, a quarter is the new. Three doubling times 12.5% is the new. Aka 87.5% old. That's most.

You have experienced this with the Internet, with mobile phones, with computers...


None of which had or needed direct-to-consumer government subsidies or mandates; their advantages sold consumers on their value all by themselves (with the % increasing as the price dropped). PEVs stand alone in still requiring such support almost everywhere.

Ever hear about ARPANET?


Sure I've heard about ARPAnet, and that was a government-sponsored development to tie research organizations together. As we all know it grew well beyond that, but there were no direct-to-consumer subsidies. At least, no one gave me money to get on the net. I had to buy entirely with my own money my first personal computer (Commodore 128), plus a used 1,200 (or maybe it was 2,400, I forget) baud modem from a friend, plus pay for my GEnie membership. Nor did the government subsidize any of my future upgrades through various PC clones, or my cell phones - I bought them because they provided enough added value to me to make me want to change/upgrade, the same reason most people did, without a dime of direct-to-consumer government subsidies.


WetEV said:
PEVs subsidies are likely mostly gone or irrelevant by 2026.


5Y6S6nI.png


That's one forecast but obviously doesn't represent the case here, and "Build Back Better" wants to increase the fed. tax credit to a max. of $10k or even $12.5k, although hopefully that won't pass the Senate. I'd much rather see the money spent on charging/fueling infrastructure, because that along with price and range are the critical roadblocks to mass adoption.
 
GRA said:
WetEV said:
BEVs are simpler, will be cheaper, are more convenient. In about a decade, BEVs will dominate, subsidies or no subsidies.
Sure BEVs will continue to improve, the question is will sales improve at the rate they need to reduce the size of the environmental problem we face, without subsidies. So far, the answer is no, in the U.S. and elsewhere, although if gas prices remain at their current levels for a while longer that will help the economic argument.

Sales can't improve faster than production. BEVs have been production constrained during much of the time while market share grew from 0.1% to 2.5%. That's a factor of 25. Best guess is the next decade is close to another factor of 25. Production limited is likely true in the future, worldwide BEV sales will mostly be limited by production.

Personal transportation isn't the biggest part of the environmental problems we face. Production of materials will require massive amounts of green hydrogen, which is decades or more away.

We are likely a few years from Peak ICE. The decline of ICE will take decades.



GRA said:
WetEV said:
FCEVs are dead.

Too expensive, not only today but likely in the future. Too inconvenient. Too dependent on expensive and expansive infrastructure. I doubt if I'll ever see a FCEV anywhere close to where I live. Unless one gets into the Tacoma Car Museum.
We've argued this ad nauseum so I'm not going to re-hash the same arguments again.

So then you agree that FCEVs are dead?



GRA said:
WetEV said:
GRA said:
Most BEVs sold in the U.S. today have luxury prices, well above the level at which the general public can consider buying them.
As you would expect. If you can build 2.5% of cars to be more convenient, and just nicer to drive, who would you sell them to?
As long as you're comfortable only selling to that 2.5%, fine, but why do the wealthy need let alone deserve subsidies?

Remember again that sales of BEVs are doubling every two to three years. 5%, 10%, 20%, 40%



GRA said:
OTOH, the most common PHEV I see (typically #3 or #4 in my occasional Friday evening commute PEV surveys, behind the Model 3 @#1, then either the Model S and/or Model Y) is the Prius Prime, which at $29,175 base MSRP + dest. is affordable by the typical new car buyer without subsidies. It's a half-assed conversion of the regular Prius, like the Fusion and C-Max Energies, but it's efficient, affordable and can eliminate 50% or more of emissions. Spending a couple thousand more will allow people to buy a PHEV like the Niro or Kona without the Prius Prime's mediocre driving dynamics and space limitations. Nicer to drive is important, but it obviously doesn't outweigh price or other factors in most people's minds (or wallets).

More convenient, cleaner, and soon to be cheaper BEVs will make PHEVs just as obsolete as ICEs.



GRA said:
WetEV said:
GRA said:
None of which had or needed direct-to-consumer government subsidies or mandates; their advantages sold consumers on their value all by themselves (with the % increasing as the price dropped). PEVs stand alone in still requiring such support almost everywhere.

Ever hear about ARPANET?

Sure I've heard about ARPAnet, and that was a government-sponsored development to tie research organizations together. As we all know it grew well beyond that, but there were no direct-to-consumer subsidies.

Point no point. Send/receive any emails from GEnie over the Internet? Was NSFnet by then, still government paid to move the data. Overlap between GEnie email gateway and NSFnet was only 2 years, so perhaps you never had government funded packet transport.

My first email was about 1982. The Internet was very government then.

In well less than a decade, I expect BEV subsidies mostly to go away. So like Internet late comers, BEV late comers will not get the subsidy discussion. Because they didn't get one.



GRA said:
WetEV said:
PEVs subsidies are likely mostly gone or irrelevant by 2026.
5Y6S6nI.png

That's one forecast but obviously doesn't represent the case here, and "Build Back Better" wants to increase the fed. tax credit to a max. of $10k or even $12.5k, although hopefully that won't pass the Senate. I'd much rather see the money spent on charging/fueling infrastructure, because that along with price and range are the critical roadblocks to mass adoption.

Follow the trend lines.

Price is going down, range is going up. Yes, charging needs to be built, but there is little point spending money on Hydrogen fueling. Hydrogen is mostly dead.
 
WetEV said:
GRA said:
WetEV said:
BEVs are simpler, will be cheaper, are more convenient. In about a decade, BEVs will dominate, subsidies or no subsidies.

Sure BEVs will continue to improve, the question is will sales improve at the rate they need to reduce the size of the environmental problem we face, without subsidies. So far, the answer is no, in the U.S. and elsewhere, although if gas prices remain at their current levels for a while longer that will help the economic argument.

Sales can't improve faster than production. BEVs have been production constrained during much of the time while market share grew from 0.1% to 2.5%. That's a factor of 25. Best guess is the next decade is close to another factor of 25. Production limited is likely true in the future, worldwide BEV sales will mostly be limited by production.


Yes, they will be, which is why I favor also developing alternative ZEV techs, so that any production and/or resource constraints can be better managed, plus it allows picking the right tool for the job.


WetEV said:
Personal transportation isn't the biggest part of the environmental problems we face. Production of materials will require massive amounts of green hydrogen, which is decades or more away.

Depends on the country/region. In some areas it's transport, in other areas it's buildings or electricty production or manufacturing or . . .


WetEV said:
We are likely a few years from Peak ICE. The decline of ICE will take decades.

Uh huh.


WetEV said:
GRA said:
WetEV said:
FCEVs are dead.

Too expensive, not only today but likely in the future. Too inconvenient. Too dependent on expensive and expansive infrastructure. I doubt if I'll ever see a FCEV anywhere close to where I live. Unless one gets into the Tacoma Car Museum.

We've argued this ad nauseum so I'm not going to re-hash the same arguments again.

So then you agree that FCEVs are dead?


Of course not, for all the reasons I've stated numerous times. For passenger FCEVs the jury's still out; for heavy transport FCEVs (and related H2 fuels) are a go, as perusal of the numerous articles I've posted excerpts from in the "H2 & FCEV" and "AFV truck and commercial vehicle" topics clearly shows.


WetEV said:
GRA said:
WetEV said:
As you would expect. If you can build 2.5% of cars to be more convenient, and just nicer to drive, who would you sell them to?

As long as you're comfortable only selling to that 2.5%, fine, but why do the wealthy need let alone deserve subsidies?

Remember again that sales of BEVs are doubling every two to three years. 5%, 10%, 20%, 40%


When driven by subsidies, perks and mandates, they may be. Current high fuel prices should help tip some people who're on the fence.


WetEV said:
GRA said:
OTOH, the most common PHEV I see (typically #3 or #4 in my occasional Friday evening commute PEV surveys, behind the Model 3 @#1, then either the Model S and/or Model Y) is the Prius Prime, which at $29,175 base MSRP + dest. is affordable by the typical new car buyer without subsidies. It's a half-assed conversion of the regular Prius, like the Fusion and C-Max Energies, but it's efficient, affordable and can eliminate 50% or more of emissions. Spending a couple thousand more will allow people to buy a PHEV like the Niro or Kona without the Prius Prime's mediocre driving dynamics and space limitations. Nicer to drive is important, but it obviously doesn't outweigh price or other factors in most people's minds (or wallets).

More convenient, cleaner, and soon to be cheaper BEVs will make PHEVs just as obsolete as ICEs.


ICE PHEVs, sure, if for no other reason than they'll eventually be banned. In the meantime they can eliminate 50% or so of emissions, in the areas where pollution is worst, and do it a price the average new car buyer can afford. The jury's still out on passenger PHFCEVs, for much the same reasons as FCEVs.


WetEV said:
GRA said:
WetEV said:
Ever hear about ARPANET?

Sure I've heard about ARPAnet, and that was a government-sponsored development to tie research organizations together. As we all know it grew well beyond that, but there were no direct-to-consumer subsidies.

Point no point. Send/receive any emails from GEnie over the Internet? Was NSFnet by then, still government paid to move the data. Overlap between GEnie email gateway and NSFnet was only 2 years, so perhaps you never had government funded packet transport.

My first email was about 1982. The Internet was very government then.

In well less than a decade, I expect BEV subsidies mostly to go away. So like Internet late comers, BEV late comers will not get the subsidy discussion. Because they didn't get one.


Good, then we agree that BEVs still aren't ready to compete on their own without subsidies, for at least 3-5 years and maybe longer. Re GEnie and emails, yeah, I used it for that, although only starting around 1993 IIRR, the same time I got online. Didn't have any reason to do so before.


WetEV said:
GRA said:
WetEV said:
PEVs subsidies are likely mostly gone or irrelevant by 2026.
5Y6S6nI.png

That's one forecast but obviously doesn't represent the case here, and "Build Back Better" wants to increase the fed. tax credit to a max. of $10k or even $12.5k, although hopefully that won't pass the Senate. I'd much rather see the money spent on charging/fueling infrastructure, because that along with price and range are the critical roadblocks to mass adoption.

Follow the trend lines.

Price is going down, range is going up. Yes, charging needs to be built, but there is little point spending money on Hydrogen fueling. Hydrogen is mostly dead.

You're once again Ignoring what's actually going on.
 
Back
Top