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.
You both are converging on some agreement:

The EV is presently a solution in search of a need for most consumers. Most consumers' present need is satisfied by an ICEV.
The smartphone was a solution that satisfied an interactive communications need, previously in search of a solution.
The PC was basically a solution in search of a need until the internet.
 
GRA said:
I know that you qualified it by stating "a decade or so", just pointing out that it's far more of "or so" than "decade". You also note the difference between what people believe and what actually happens - there are lots of similar polls in the U.S. and elsewhere, saying that a large % and sometimes a majority of people will consider or are certain a BEV will be their next car, but when it comes time to spend their own money, only a small fraction of them actually buy one. Until the numbers in those surveys show a better correlation with reality, it's essentially just window-shopping.

If 10% of people want a BEV, 8% need to be talked out of it. Price, wait list, lack of advertising, whatever. There are not battery plants functioning today or next year to provide much more than 2% of the auto market with BEVs.
 
GRA said:
Many of them would just re-role themselves as charging or H2 fuel stations. After all, gas station profits aren't in selling gas, they're in convenience store sales. The profit on gas sales is very low, typically less than 2%, and often negative. Counter-intuitively, gas stations tend to do better when gas prices are low, because then drivers don't shop around for the lowest priced station, they just use the most convenient one.

You have yet to think through the economics of charging or H2. Gas stations are not the same sort of places as charging stations.

Cheap charging will not be DCQC stations in former gasoline stations. It will be L2 or even L1 in parking garages and lots, both public and part of apartments and other housing. Charging that a gasoline station might host, DCQC, is a lot more expensive. Only useful for travelers and other special events.

H2 isn't realistic for vehicles, other than perhaps aircraft or other long duration uses.
 
WetEV said:
GRA said:
Many of them would just re-role themselves as charging or H2 fuel stations. After all, gas station profits aren't in selling gas, they're in convenience store sales. The profit on gas sales is very low, typically less than 2%, and often negative. Counter-intuitively, gas stations tend to do better when gas prices are low, because then drivers don't shop around for the lowest priced station, they just use the most convenient one.

You have yet to think through the economics of charging or H2. Gas stations are not the same sort of places as charging stations.

Currently true, owing to slow charging rates. For now, the place to put faster (350+kW) QCs is fast food restaurants, but if batteries improve to the point that charging can be comparable to liquid fueling times, then gas stations can be re-purposed for charging.


WetEV said:
Cheap charging will not be DCQC stations in former gasoline stations. It will be L2 or even L1 in parking garages and lots, both public and part of apartments and other housing. Charging that a gasoline station might host, DCQC, is a lot more expensive. Only useful for travelers and other special events.

While L1/2 at long-duration sites will play a role, if DC QC can avoid demand charges thanks to the development of cheap storage, the cost barrier largely disappears. Not guaranteed, of course, in which case I agree with you.


WetEV said:
H2 isn't realistic for vehicles, other than perhaps aircraft or other long duration uses.

Oh, it's realistic, it's just not cost-effective yet other than niches. But if you look at where the retail H2 stations are, they're at existing gas stations, as the operational requirements and business model are virtually identical. If sustainable H2 costs can be brought down and it can be made in the necessary volumes, it will have a part to play. How big that part may be, and whether land, sea or air, will as noted depend on cost and production limits (as well as the competition, of course).

I see H2 for regional air; locomotives in areas without enough traffic to justify electrification; over-the-road transport; faster, longer range ferries and perhaps a majority of oceanic shipping; plus longer-range non-commercial vehicles and various specialized niches that require longer run times/shorter refueling times/portable fuel. BEVs handle virtually all of the shorter duration/range tasks, especially where weight isn't an issue, and biofuels cover the very longest range aviation and (possibly) marine use.
 
GRA said:
While L1/2 at long-duration sites will play a role, if DC QC can avoid demand charges thanks to the development of cheap storage, the cost barrier largely disappears. Not guaranteed, of course, in which case I agree with you.
Even if storage is practically free, DCQC is more expensive. Bunch of high power, high current electronics needs to be paid for. And the time factor.

You don't get how home L1/L2 charging is a time saver and a convenience factor because you don't live with an EV.

You don't understand how not needed to schedule a fueling stop into your day is freedom.

You have yet to experience the feeling of driving past a gasoline station when the rain is coming down in sheets, temperature is 36 F and the wind is 36 MPH with higher gusts. And you will never need to stop there. Ever.
 
WetEV said:
GRA said:
While L1/2 at long-duration sites will play a role, if DC QC can avoid demand charges thanks to the development of cheap storage, the cost barrier largely disappears. Not guaranteed, of course, in which case I agree with you.
Even if storage is practically free, DCQC is more expensive. Bunch of high power, high current electronics needs to be paid for. And the time factor.


Sure it's more expensive, but it's not as if any profitable public charging is cheaper than gas at the moment.


WetEV said:
You don't get how home L1/L2 charging is a time saver and a convenience factor because you don't live with an EV.

You don't understand how not needed to schedule a fueling stop into your day is freedom.

You have yet to experience the feeling of driving past a gasoline station when the rain is coming down in sheets, temperature is 36 F and the wind is 36 MPH with higher gusts. And you will never need to stop there. Ever.


I have no problem with the convenience of home/work L2, but I lived with a BEV for a week and L1 is the opposite of convenience, at least with a short range BEV; it's far too restrictive for spur of the moment trips if you have a low battery. I see L1 primarily useful for smaller battery PHEVs, and maybe some workplace charging along with L2s, as well as long-stay parking at airports and the like.

The feeling of driving past gas stations? Not having to schedule a fuel stop into my day is freedom? I haven't had to schedule a fuel stop into my routine day for 20 years, as I commute and do errands by bike. As opposed to hoping that the one charging site along my route which I've had to plan my entire trip around is both free and working? You've got to be kidding. Someday, when charging is ubiquitous and fast, sure, but not now.
 
GRA said:
Sure it's more expensive, but it's not as if any profitable public charging is cheaper than gas at the moment.

L2 charge stations can be both profitable and cheaper than gasoline, if reasonable utilization rate and if electric rates are not too high.

GRA said:
WetEV said:
You don't get how home L1/L2 charging is a time saver and a convenience factor because you don't live with an EV.
I lived with a BEV for a week

Wow. Now that's a lot of experience. /s

GRA said:
and L1 is the opposite of convenience, at least with a short range BEV;

If you use more range in a day that can be recharged while you sleep, yes. Not everyone uses that much range in a day. Many people find L1 convenient. Larger battery would help some, by leveling off peak days.

GRA said:
I see L1 primarily useful for smaller battery PHEVs, and maybe some workplace charging along with L2s, as well as long-stay parking at airports and the like.

Or for people with smaller driving needs, perhaps?
 
WetEV said:
GRA said:
Sure it's more expensive, but it's not as if any profitable public charging is cheaper than gas at the moment.

L2 charge stations can be both profitable and cheaper than gasoline, if reasonable utilization rate and if electric rates are not too high.


But are any profitable and cheaper than gasoline? Not around here. Maybe in your neck of the woods, but you've got some of if not the lowest electric rates in the country thanks to lots of depression-era government-funded hydro (and now wind). California's got the highest gas prices and some of the highest electricity prices in the country, and I know of no for-profit EV charging network that has lower prices than gas for a hybrid, and in many cases even for a moderate mpg ICE like mine.


WetEV said:
GRA said:
WetEV said:
You don't get how home L1/L2 charging is a time saver and a convenience factor because you don't live with an EV.
I lived with a BEV for a week

Wow. Now that's a lot of experience. /s

Never claimed it was a lot (see my sig), but it was more than enough to convince me that short-ranged BEVs limited to L1-only are simply unacceptable to me, and as numerous posts here over the years show, lots of BEV owners - do you disagree? For some who have access to another vehicle or who only have minimal range needs and never take spur of the moment trips it may be adequate, but not for most people. As it was I was treating the week I had the BEV as an experiment, so didn't use my ICE even though I could have, just to see what being reliant on a BEV meant. Of course, that was in the late '90s, so public charging infrastructure, while still far from adequate, is a lot better now. But IMO L1 just doesn't cut it for BEV-only households, unless your driving needs are entirely predictable, and never come close to using the total battery capacity. How many can say that? How many want to leave themselves with so little margin?


WetEV said:
GRA said:
and L1 is the opposite of convenience, at least with a short range BEV;

If you use more range in a day that can be recharged while you sleep, yes. Not everyone uses that much range in a day. Many people find L1 convenient. Larger battery would help some, by leveling off peak days.


Which is why I'm a fan for now of PHEVs with small packs that can be fully charged on L1 overnight, as it keeps the cost of the cars and the charging infrastructure to an absolute minimum, while allowing a much larger reduction in fossil-fuel use per dollar spent (and battery cells made) than a big-battery BEV. 'Many' isn't the same as 'most', and most BEV owners here consider L1-only as unacceptable as I do. Yes, a larger battery can provide a reserve (which is why I specifically mentioned a short-range BEV), and that's helpful, provided you have enough time to recover the excess usage before you need it again. But if you can't count on that, you're screwed if BEV-only.


WetEV said:
GRA said:
I see L1 primarily useful for smaller battery PHEVs, and maybe some workplace charging along with L2s, as well as long-stay parking at airports and the like.

Or for people with smaller driving needs, perhaps?

See above. Provided their range needs are minimal and they never have to make a no-notice emergency run, or they have a second car that isn't so limited. We can come up with niche exceptions, but they aren't typical or, for most people, acceptable.

I'm gone for a while, so any reply to a future post of yours will be delayed.
 
...plus more stations with lower-priced fuel. Even so, the U.S. was always going to be one of if not the toughest markets for FCEVs, given our low gas prices.

Renewable sourced hydrogen is always going to be far more expensive than electric power. Electric power at home is about a third the price of gasoline, today in Washington State.
 
WetEV said:
...plus more stations with lower-priced fuel. Even so, the U.S. was always going to be one of if not the toughest markets for FCEVs, given our low gas prices.

Renewable sourced hydrogen is always going to be far more expensive than electric power. Electric power at home is about a third the price of gasoline, today in Washington State.


Sure, but if it provides the capability people want (and BEVs don't) it won't matter, just as it doesn't matter to most people now that gas costs more than (home) electricity.

To add one more confirmation onto the pile of the three main factors inhibiting the adoption of BEVs, via GCR:
Cost remains the biggest barrier against EV adoption, study finds
https://www.greencarreports.com/new...ggest-barrier-against-ev-adoption-study-finds


A global study of consumers points to a continued disconnect between environmental awareness and electric vehicle sales—especially among Americans.

Based on polling of 20,000 worldwide respondents, the study module released Monday finds three familiar foes: cost, range, and charging infrastructure. And, it points out, price ranks far above the other two.

Ipsos . . . found that consumers are only willing to pay an extra 10% above the price of a comparable gas or diesel model, and once the difference goes beyond 20% interest drops. With electric-car battery prices dropping 13% in 2019 year-over-year and expected to reach parity (and the $100/kwh mark, on a pack basis) with internal-combustion powertrains by 2023 or so, that complaint should hopefully soon be moot.

On driving range, Ipsos noted that Americans drive about 170 miles over a typical workweek, and with current long-range EV offerings a typical owner might only need to charge once a week. Yet 45% of Americans, according to poll data, believe that they would need to charge once or more per day.

On average, Americans believe that it will be a minimum of 4.6 years before there’s an EV offering available to meet both budget and vehicle needs.

It’s worth pointing out that while we see the same barriers over and over again—price, range, and infrastructure—the studies continue to differ on which one is most important. A Volvo/Harris poll from last year, for instance, found charging infrastructure to be the biggest obstacle. And an Autolist poll, also last year, found that range and price were the bigger issues.

Further underscoring that there’s a disconnect, an annual survey from AAA found, last spring, that 20% of Americans intend to buy an electric car the next time they purchase a new one. . . .
 
GRA said:
WetEV said:
...plus more stations with lower-priced fuel. Even so, the U.S. was always going to be one of if not the toughest markets for FCEVs, given our low gas prices.

Renewable sourced hydrogen is always going to be far more expensive than electric power. Electric power at home is about a third the price of gasoline, today in Washington State.


Sure, but if it provides the capability people want (and BEVs don't) it won't matter, just as it doesn't matter to most people now that gas costs more than (home) electricity.

BEVs don't have the capability today for you, perhaps to be more accurate. You are not everyone. You are not even close to the mean. Most driving is commuting, and you don't drive to commute.
 
WetEV said:
GRA said:
WetEV said:
Renewable sourced hydrogen is always going to be far more expensive than electric power. Electric power at home is about a third the price of gasoline, today in Washington State.


Sure, but if it provides the capability people want (and BEVs don't) it won't matter, just as it doesn't matter to most people now that gas costs more than (home) electricity.

BEVs don't have the capability today for you, perhaps to be more accurate. You are not everyone. You are not even close to the mean. Most driving is commuting, and you don't drive to commute.


Of course, but since the majority of car commuters also want to be able to take road trips in their cars, and current BEVs remain limited in their ability to do that, I do represent the mainstream in that respect. Otherwise, people would be buying short-range BEVs for commuting in large numbers, rather than pushing for longer range BEVs as they are. When (if) BEVs can replace ICEs across the board we'll likely see lower-priced, short-range commute-only BEVs be acceptable for many people as a second car, or maybe MaaS will close the gap.
 
GRA said:
WetEV said:
GRA said:
Sure, but if it provides the capability people want (and BEVs don't) it won't matter, just as it doesn't matter to most people now that gas costs more than (home) electricity.

BEVs don't have the capability today for you, perhaps to be more accurate. You are not everyone. You are not even close to the mean. Most driving is commuting, and you don't drive to commute.

Of course, but since the majority of car commuters also want to be able to take road trips in their cars, and current BEVs remain limited in their ability to do that, I do represent the mainstream in that respect.

A question of balance, of course. Short trips are better in a BEV, Road trips beyond range are very possible, and only slightly slower than with an ICE. High road trip:commute ratio makes a BEV less appealing. High ratio of commute:road trip makes a BEV more appealing. Your ratio is nearly infinite, as you don't commute by BEV. Oh, and the type of road trip matters. If your idea of a road trip is to go from Seattle to Portland OR, and stay at a hotel with charging, there would not be any large difference between road tripping a BEV and an ICE. If you want road trips to remote places, it can get more difficult. You want road trips to remote places. Again, makes a BEV even less appealing to you.

So your use case is not close to average.

About 0.6% of the USA commutes by bicycle. That's rather less mainstream than BEVs.

How many cars were parked at your last couple of road trip destinations? Four? Ten?
 
WetEV said:
GRA said:
WetEV said:
BEVs don't have the capability today for you, perhaps to be more accurate. You are not everyone. You are not even close to the mean. Most driving is commuting, and you don't drive to commute.

Of course, but since the majority of car commuters also want to be able to take road trips in their cars, and current BEVs remain limited in their ability to do that, I do represent the mainstream in that respect.

A question of balance, of course. Short trips are better in a BEV, Road trips beyond range are very possible, and only slightly slower than with an ICE. High road trip:commute ratio makes a BEV less appealing. High ratio of commute:road trip makes a BEV more appealing. Your ratio is nearly infinite, as you don't commute by BEV. Oh, and the type of road trip matters. If your idea of a road trip is to go from Seattle to Portland OR, and stay at a hotel with charging, there would not be any large difference between road tripping a BEV and an ICE. If you want road trips to remote places, it can get more difficult. You want road trips to remote places. Again, makes a BEV even less appealing to you.

So your use case is not close to average.

About 0.6% of the USA commutes by bicycle. That's rather less mainstream than BEVs.

How many cars were parked at your last couple of road trip destinations? Four? Ten?


We agree that for weekend getaways within say 1.5 times their range, current 200+ mile BEVs aren't too much of an inconvenience/time suck (as long as there's charging en route/at destination), but weekend getaways aren't my definition of a road trip - multi-day, multi-fuel-stop trips are what I mean.

As I've never claimed that my use case is average (I've repeatedly said the opposite), I'm not sure why you bring it up - I said that most car owners want their cars to give them the freedom to take road trips, and in that way my needs are representative. That such trips make up a tiny minority of use for most of them is true, but irrelevant to their desires.

As for how many cars were parked at my most recent trip destination, although I was out for 4 days (intended to be five, but incoming weather suggested it would be better to come out early) it was essentially a weekend trip as far as driving, and there were about 10 (in the overnight wilderness parking area; the day parking gets a lot fuller) including one Model X when I arrived, and maybe half that when I returned. But then my car was parked at a trailhead which was also a downhill ski resort, accessed by paved road, so that wasn't the typical trailhead for me. Many of the trailheads I use are up dirt roads, and the number of cars (and people) decreases exponentially with distance and elevation away from pavement. I haven't taken any out-of-state trips for years now while I wait to be able to do it in a ZEV, and I'm getting very tired of waiting. EA will help once they complete I-70/80, but neither it or the Tesla SC network is adequate yet to get me to the places I want to go in currently available, affordable BEVs. More range, faster charging, lower prices and a lot more off-interstate charging infrastructure remain essential requirements for me to switch, but other people with different needs, or at least different destinations and routes, may find them acceptable for road trips now, although they remain a tiny minority of car owners.
 
GRA said:
We agree that for weekend getaways within say 1.5 times their range, current 200+ mile BEVs aren't too much of an inconvenience/time suck (as long as there's charging en route/at destination), but weekend getaways aren't my definition of a road trip - multi-day, multi-fuel-stop trips are what I mean.

1.5 times? Yes, with the 80 mile range LEAF that was about what I would found ideal. I did longer trips, but the requirement for stopping wasn't ideal.

With the E-Tron, charging times don't change much, and the times between charges increase with increasing range. That changes the ratio of range to realistic distance. Drive for two hours, stop for a 20 minute break works far better than drive for 45 minutes and stop for 15 minutes. Still not ideal, but much less of an inconvenience. With 400 miles of range and another doubling of charge speed, that would be drive for 4 hours, stop for 20 minutes (lunch anyone?), drive for 4 hours, stop for the evening. With charging at hotels or campgrounds it could pick up a full charge or close to one in 14 hours or so, and as most people eat dinner, sleep and eat breakfast that BEV could be better than an ICE for a road trip. At least very close. Of course, it wouldn't cover your use case, as you don't like to stay in hotels or campgrounds with RV plugs and you don't follow major roads.


GRA said:
As I've never claimed that my use case is average (I've repeatedly said the opposite), I'm not sure why you bring it up - I said that most car owners want their cars to give them the freedom to take road trips, and in that way my needs are representative.

Sure. Your idea of a road trip isn't representative. Unpaved roads? As you say, exponentially fewer the farther away from pavement. You are way out in the tails of the distribution.

And your type of driving isn't representative. The median person would balance the gains in time and bother for normal commuting with the disadvantages of current BEVs. You are not the median person, so you can't do that balance, you don't understand it.

GRA said:
but other people with different needs, or at least different destinations and routes, may find them acceptable for road trips now, although they remain a tiny minority of car owners.

GRA, do you see how there is going to be a distribution? Very few would find a 24kWh BEV acceptable for a road trip of any sort. Far more find a 200 mile BEV acceptable, especially with faster charging. Somewhere around 150kWh to 200kWh and a reasonable charging network, the majority of people will find BEVs better than ICEs for road trips. Especially as the gasoline stations start to disappear, which they will as BEVs get more popular than ICEs.
 
WetEV said:
GRA said:
We agree that for weekend getaways within say 1.5 times their range, current 200+ mile BEVs aren't too much of an inconvenience/time suck (as long as there's charging en route/at destination), but weekend getaways aren't my definition of a road trip - multi-day, multi-fuel-stop trips are what I mean.

1.5 times? Yes, with the 80 mile range LEAF that was about what I would found ideal. I did longer trips, but the requirement for stopping wasn't ideal.

With the E-Tron, charging times don't change much, and the times between charges increase with increasing range. That changes the ratio of range to realistic distance. Drive for two hours, stop for a 20 minute break works far better than drive for 45 minutes and stop for 15 minutes. Still not ideal, but much less of an inconvenience. With 400 miles of range and another doubling of charge speed, that would be drive for 4 hours, stop for 20 minutes (lunch anyone?), drive for 4 hours, stop for the evening. With charging at hotels or campgrounds it could pick up a full charge or close to one in 14 hours or so, and as most people eat dinner, sleep and eat breakfast that BEV could be better than an ICE for a road trip. At least very close. Of course, it wouldn't cover your use case, as you don't like to stay in hotels or campgrounds with RV plugs and you don't follow major roads.


I've been saying for a long time that 4 hours (pref. more) at highway speeds (as much as 80 mph in the west, plus reserve and allowances for
degradation, HVAC etc.) with no more than a 20 minute charge to do it again would work for me, albeit I'd prefer shorter charge times and/or greater range. On multi-state road trips I'm often driving 12-16 hours/day (did 20 once, coming back from Colorado) to get where I'm going, so a repeatable 20 minute charge for 4 hours of no-worries range is needed. Edit: Here's what would really move things closer to ICE capability, if it proves out. Via GCC:
Enevate announces new 4th-generation Si-dominant battery technology; optimized for high volume production
https://www.greencarcongress.com/2020/01/20200115-enevate.html

The new XFC-Energy technology achieves 5-minute charging to 75% capacity with 800 Wh/L cell energy density. Today’s conventional large-format Li-ion EV cells are at 500-600 Wh/L and typically take more than 1 hour to charge.

Highlights of the fourth-generation XFC-Energy technology include:


  • Cell technology scalable for large-format pouch, prismatic and cylindrical EV cells suitable for various battery module and pack architectures. Achieves 800 Wh/L and 340 Wh/kg in large-format EV cells.

    Pure silicon-dominant anode technology tunable with 10-60micrometer thickness and 1000-2000mAh/g that can be paired with NCA, NCM811, NCMA, low-cobalt, or other advanced cathode technologies.

    Continuous roll-to-roll anode manufacturing processes designed and capable of achieving more than 80 meters per minute electrode production, more than 10 GWh per electrode production line, with pure silicon anode rolls greater than 1 meter wide and longer than 5 kilometers in length sufficient for high volume gigafactory production, among other features.

    Lower anode material cost (dollar per kWh) than conventional and synthetic graphite.

    Transformative performance improvement, with five-minute charge to 75% of battery capacity, and, when paired with a high-nickel cathode, capable of over 1000 cycles using an EV drive cycle test and operation at -20 deg. C and below temperatures.


Of course, announcements of battery breakthroughs are a dime a dozen. They're talking about production for 2024-25 MY BEVs, so we'll see if that happens, plus somebody's got to build the charging infrastructure and the electricity has to be affordable.


WetEV said:
GRA said:
As I've never claimed that my use case is average (I've repeatedly said the opposite), I'm not sure why you bring it up - I said that most car owners want their cars to give them the freedom to take road trips, and in that way my needs are representative.

Sure. Your idea of a road trip isn't representative. Unpaved roads? As you say, exponentially fewer the farther away from pavement. You are way out in the tails of the distribution.

And your type of driving isn't representative. The median person would balance the gains in time and bother for normal commuting with the disadvantages of current BEVs. You are not the median person, so you can't do that balance, you don't understand it.


I've been that median person, commuting by car just like everyone else. Do you think I've forgotten what that's like? Note I never said that road trips need to involve unpaved roads- they're only a tiny part of mine, albeit important. But the majority of my time/miles driving on road trips is on interstates and state highways, just like most people who take road trips. Grand Canyon gets 6 million visitors a year, with nary a need to drive on dirt unless you really want to. Same for visiting the major tourist areas of pretty much every N.P., although the more remote parts I often go to may require a few miles of dirt (I think 20-25 miles one-way was my max., in the Ancient Bristlecone Pine forest in the White Mountains of California. 5-10 miles is more typical) for the final bit.


WetEV said:
GRA said:
but other people with different needs, or at least different destinations and routes, may find them acceptable for road trips now, although they remain a tiny minority of car owners.

GRA, do you see how there is going to be a distribution? Very few would find a 24kWh BEV acceptable for a road trip of any sort. Far more find a 200 mile BEV acceptable, especially with faster charging. Somewhere around 150kWh to 200kWh and a reasonable charging network, the majority of people will find BEVs better than ICEs for road trips. Especially as the gasoline stations start to disappear, which they will as BEVs get more popular than ICEs.


When we've got 150-200kWh* BEVs which can charge in reasonable time almost anywhere at affordable prices, they'll be fine for pretty much everyone. We're years away from that.


*Better if we have smaller packs with minimal degradation, so we don't need such a large allowance for that. 125-150kWh would probably be enough in that case.
 
2019 U.S. PEV sales per IEVS: 329,266, vs. 2018 U.S. sales of 361,307, a drop of 32,041 (8.9%) Y-o-Y. For Q4, PEV sales really tanked Y-o-Y, down 26%: https://insideevs.com/news/393629/us-plugin-sales-charted-2019/ Only the Model 3 had total annual sales in 6 figures (158,925); no other PEV managed to average even 2k sales/month, with the Prime at 23,630 for the year.

For comparison, per https://www.marklines.com/en/statistics/flash_sales/salesfig_usa_2019 total U.S. LDV sales were down from 17,274,243 to 17,047,725 Y-o-Y, a drop of 226,968 or 1.3%. PEV sales % dropped to 1.93% for the year.
 
GRA said:
2019 U.S. PEV sales per IEVS: 329,266, vs. 2018 U.S. sales of 361,307, a drop of 32,041 (8.9%) Y-o-Y. For Q4, PEV sales really tanked Y-o-Y, down 26%: https://insideevs.com/news/393629/us-plugin-sales-charted-2019/ Only the Model 3 had total annual sales in 6 figures (158,925); no other PEV managed to average even 2k sales/month, with the Prime at 23,630 for the year.

For comparison, per https://www.marklines.com/en/statistics/flash_sales/salesfig_usa_2019 total U.S. LDV sales were down from 17,274,243 to 17,047,725 Y-o-Y, a drop of 226,968 or 1.3%. PEV sales % dropped to 1.93% for the year.

Picture tells the story. 2018 was very very good, especially in Q3 and Q4. If you look at 2017 to 2019, 2019 wasn't so bad.

U.S.%20Plug-In%20Car%20Sales%20%E2%80%93%20Q4%202019.png
 
Not so bad? What happened to their inevitable upwards march to dominance? We have one cult favorite that sells middling well although its sales peaked and are waning (down every one of the past six months Y-o-Y), and every other PEV has a tough time justifying its existence. For a robust market we need 3 or 4 PEVs to each sell at least 50-60k/year, and preferably 100k+.

The hope is that the Model Y, Mach-E and lower down the price scale the RAV4 Prime* will all be hits, as they will finally start to address models where the demand is signficantly higher, but will the first two just cannibalize sales from each other, and will they result in sales to new customers rather than just repeat business (people trading over from Model 3s)? The need is to grow the market, not just keep selling to the same limited one over and over. So far, only the RAV4 seems capable of achieving the latter, as it will (hopefully) have a mainstream price, unlike the first two.


*We still don't know when the ID.4 will arrive or have any idea of its price category, so I left it out.
 
Back
Top