Motor Industry bosses have said this week that the Electric car market is carnage and that EVs are not fit for primetime sales.
We’ve had both Hyundai and Toyota come out in recent weeks to announce they will not be pursuing electric cars in the foreseeable future, and now a industry bosses have spoken out on the failure of electric cars at a motor industry meeting in New York.
Rodney O’Neal – CEO of Delphi, a leading global supplier of electronics and technologies for automotive industry – describes the electric car market as ‘Carnage’, and Borg Warner’s CEO Tim Manganello said the EV ‘is not fit for primetime’. O’Neal also stated he was ‘…not hopeful battery technology will get better’.
Even car makers’ representatives on the panel were pessimistic. Martin Jager from Daimler stated that EVs were only viable if governments wanted then to be and were prepared to bribe buyers with tax breaks and incentives, and VW’s head of US operations said that customer acceptance was slow and that although EVs have a place, it’s a small one.
And electric cars do have a place – in cities as a second or third car for running around town for short distances; as taxis in polluted cities (but better not go south of the river in case you don’t make it back) and as delivery vehicles in confined areas. Apart from that, they’re an expensive waste of space.
At this rate, it’ll be Nissan selling the LEAF at a big loss and nothing else purporting to be an alternative to the ICE car on the market in a few years time.
Especially once Hydrogen Fuel Cell cars start to make their mark.
Source: Car & Driver
Daniel Fichana says
Let’s look at the atricle and the CEO sources
Hyundia has been working of fuel cells for a while- Of course they are going to say that EVs are not ready. I would take that with a grain of salt. They are making and researching a competing technology.
Toyota makes the Hybrids and have billions upon billions of dollars of research into hybrids. This is the classic case study of what happened with Kodak back in the 80’s and 90’s. They do not want to have EVs effecting their businesses
Delphi makes components for internal combustion engine cars. A quick look at their products puts them totally reliant on combustion cars being dominant.
It’s really a no-brainer to see why these said companies would say that EVs are not ready.
In terms of hydrogen, it has many, many problems, both financially and from an energy balance. compared to EVs where electricity is readily available, hydrogen requires a huge infrastructure. I believe the cost per station is around 5 million dollars, consider the amount of stations required and where the fuel would come from. It would most likely come from methane, but could be made from hydrolysis (more energy intensive). Not to mention that pressurized tanks in the US require hydrostatic testing every 5 years, so removing or replacing a large tank is very costly and energy intensive.
Cars UK says
Right, new day, new voice – but the sentiments won’t be much different!
Let’s just try to clarify a few perspectives:
1. This article is about the car industry’s take on the BEV as a commercially viable product. It is not about how cheap EVs are to run.
2. All EVs are cheap to run because EV owners are being hugely subsidised by the EV makers and the taxpayer. If EVs were being sold at the cost of production plus a margin none of you would have bought one.
3. All you early adopters are in a privileged position. You are able to indulge your evangelism for the EV because the purchase costs and running costs are completely artificial.
4. Yes, you lucky people who can afford to stump up for a solar array – and live somewhere it is viable – can get ‘free’ electricity.
5. Are any of you naive enough to think that if, by some miracle, EVs became the norm your free running costs would continue? The tax take on a litre of fuel (in the UK) is not 59p but over 60%. Do any of you think that governments would simply forego that tax take if we all drove EVs? Of course not. And if they couldn’t tax electricity directly they’d simply grab it another way.
6. Of course most of us here would have an EV to run around locally (assuming we’re paid enough!). But none of us would choose an EV as a primary car – it is not a replacement for an ICE car and, short of huge improvements in the cost, weight and range afforded that will never be the case.
7. Car makers are in business to make a profit. Yes, they’ve been pushed down the EV route by governments demanding lower average CO2 levels, but the assumption has been that technology would save the day. It hasn’t, and there is little prospect it will.
8. The reported stance of Toyota and Hyundai is accurate and not an interpretation of what a few execs said. Toyota are NOT pursuing EVs further and nor are Hyundai. Cost, technology and the realisation that, for many, EVs are impractical is key to their decision.
If we’ve not covered anything brought up in the comments so far we will do our best to respond (time permitting).
Craigix says
So you’re saying the 300 mile Tesla modelS isn’t ideal to replace an ICE car?
And if EV are not profitable why is Tesla making them?
And you do understand that making Hydrogen requires HUGE amounts of electricity making it very expensive and also very inefficient?
If you just put all that electricity in to an EV it would go a lot further without the need for the million dollar hydrogen tank…
Cars UK says
Ok, missed that in the earlier roundup of stuff!
This is about the failure of BEVs and battery technology to offer a viable MAINSTEAM option for car makers.
The Tesla Model S looks a great car (and we confess no one here has yet driven one) but at a starting price of $50k for the smallest range and $70k for the 300 mile pack it’s not cheap. The 300 mile pack probably costs around $40k to replace – probably twice the price of the average new car. And has Tesla ever made any money. The Tesla S is a niche car, nothing more.
As for the hydrogen stuff, it’s clear there are big strides in hydrogen technology so, although there’s a way to go, it’s a promising route. Unlike battery technology which has improved only a little in a century and looks nowhere near the big breakthrough car makers have hoped for.
Craigix says
Are you actually trolling your own readers?
Battery technology has advanced an extraordinary amount in the last 100 years, far more than, say, the ICE has.
Also there are no advances in hydrogen, hydrogen is hydrogen – an extraordinarily inefficient way of moving a vehicle – you can never overcome that problem – it’s very expensive to make and uses ridiculous amounts of electricity to make it.
Why would you bother with the hydrogen tank and the massive inefficiency of hydrogen as a power source when you can just use a much cheaper battery?
See here to learn more about hydrogen: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_vehicle#Criticism
I’m astonished you’re writing articles with such little knowledge of the technology. You readers are trying to explain this to you and rather than trying to learn from what they are saying your just digging a deeper hole.
Jay Jayakumar says
Isn’t it interesting, that almost everyone who has owned an EV for a few months or for few years, love their plugins and swear that they would never own an ICEv again. On the contrary every comment or article that derides an EV is from folks who have never owned or even sat on one for a test drive.
Go figure.
Cars UK says
Five out of six staff here would have a BEV as a second runaround car. But that isn’t the point of the article. The point is that BEVs and even Range Extenders are not a viable way to replace the ICE car. The costs of production are prohibitive and they cannot be sold at a price that will ever make them mainstream without a big leap in battery technology. All BEVs and REs are being sold at a loss (the replacement cost for batteries alone on the LEAF is £19k) and unless, or until, battery technology makes the leap that’s been predicted for a century they never will be.
Car makers are in business to make a profit. They cannot do so on cars that cost more to build than they sell for and car makers can’t continue down that road in the hope of taxpayer assistance or a miracle breakthrough in the weight, range, cost and power of batteries.
Paul Scott says
First of all, five of your staff, and probably the 6th one as well, can and will use an EV for your primary car, far from being a “second runaround car”. You’ll only need to use petrol on the rare occasion you need to go more than about 200 miles in a day.
As for your comment, “The costs of production are prohibitive and they cannot be sold at a price that will ever make them mainstream without a big leap in battery technology.” That’s far from the truth as evidenced by Nissan and GM selling and leasing their LEAF and Volt for an affordable price. I personally have sold 250 LEAFs here in Los Angeles and I can assure you that 100% of the owners are as excited and happy with their cars as the EV owners here have expressed.
The fact that you think the costs of these cars are equivalent to a lesser vehicle such as a Versa or Cruise means you don’t value the attributes of driving on renewable electricity. Attributes such as clean air, no wars and a strong economy. Those are the things we get when we switch from oil to renewable electricity. The fact that you don’t put any value on those things tells us all we need to know about your character. I guess that is what it is.
I suspect there are a lot of people who dislike having to pollute other people’s air, who don’t want to use a fuel over which we fight wars, and who prefer to spend their dollars locally to build a strong economy.
These people are good. You are not.
You are factually wrong on every point when all costs are tallied. Until and unless you care to address the external costs of oil openly with us, then we have nothing further to say.
Tom Moloughney says
I’ve been driving electric for over 3 1/2 years now and I recently past my 100,00th electric mile. I don’t live in the city, a live in a rural farm area and commute 40 miles each way to work. Driving electric has been fantastic and I’ll never go back to gas. The smooth acceleration, instant torque and quiet ride makes my driving experience much better. I spend a lot of time in a my cars driving 30,000 miles per year so the driving experience is important to me. I don’t expect EV’s to take over for a while, but in the long run they will because they are simply better cars to drive regardless of what the detractors that have never lived with an electric cars say. Funny thing is, like me virtually everyone that get an EV loves them and vows never to go back to gas, it’s the people that have NO experience with them that criticize them and say they won’t work. They have proved to me they do. Here’s a blog post I recently did about passing 100,000 electric miles: http://activeemobility.blogspot.com/2012/10/40-months-100000-ev-miles.html
Edward Ellyatt says
I have been driving my Chevrolet Volt for over 20 months and just rolled over 40,000 miles on the car, I feel it is the best car I have ever owned and cannot wait until I can buy another plug-in (Hopefully the Cadillac ELR) for my wife to drive. These new technology automobiles are a pleasure to drive, fast responsive, and hug the road like the best sports cars.
Will it take a little while for the technology to take over? Sure because people have been driving gas cars for all their lives. Something new will always take a little while to mature in the market place. Will theyu take over? You bet. Nothing this good will sit in the wings very long.
My return on investment is less than 5 years and in 5 more years I will be driving on sunlight as well. No longer will I be held hostage by big oil. My future travel will be “no charge” as in free from the sun.
You actually do a disservice to your reading public not telling them how great it is to drive electric. Maybe all you really need is a test drive yourself. Nothing this smooth, quiet, powerful and economical will take long to catch on. Remember they said the Toyota Prius would never make an impact. I am now driving a car that has truly leapfrogged the Prius and sales growth is still way ahead of the early days of the Prius.
Readers do yourself a favor and test drive the Volt.
Cars UK says
We applaud the Volt (or Ampera, as we get it this side of the Pond). But it’s a niche product. The technology is too expensive to make it anything but. Here, a low-spec base Ampera/Volt costs $56k. Compare that to a base diesel Focus at $27k that does 70mpg and the Volt/Ampera just doesn’t add up for buyers.
David Peilow says
I drive an Ampera and am coming up on 6 months ownership and 8500 miles. Since I’ve charged at work and home I have driven on electricity for nearly 90% of those miles for a combined average of 229 MPG, yet still been on trips from Hampshire to Cornwall, Wales, Santa Pod, Silverstone, London 3 times, Somerset 3 times, Gloucestershire etc, etc.
The Ampera/Volt (both are sold here) starts at £29,000 with a specification equivalent to a £25,000 Astra 2.0 CDTi. The Ampera overtakes the Astra in Total Cost of Ownership after 3 years and over its lifetime will save £20,000 compared to the Astra once you factor in diesel costs (I am not including the tax, insurance and servicing costs of the Ampera which make it even better value).
So if some journalists could get past the sticker price and start looking at TCO, perhaps they might see the massive step forward that it is. I’ve lost track of petrol prices because I just put in about £15 worth a month. I traded in an Audi S3 for the car, so I am used to fun to drive and a premium cabin – and I don’t regret it for a minute.
Cars UK says
We don’t have a problem with range-extenders – they’re great – although we do question their viability as a long-term solution because of their cost. We’ll say it again: the Ampera and Volt are great.
The premise of the article is BEVs not being fit for purpose as a replacement for the ICE car. Range extenders are – if you can afford the purchase price (and let’s not forget the taxpayer is bribing you to buy your Volt/Ampera to the tune of £5k) – but long term it’s hydrogen that holds most promise, either as a fuel cell to power EVs (which we like a lot) or, perhaps with most promise, as a replacement for petrol/diesel as hydrogen ‘Petrol’.
David Peilow says
Well, I think it’s a fair assumption to say that the £5k from the government is going straight into the manufacturer’s pockets, as expected prices jumped by the same as soon as the grant was announced. The US price of the Volt is $39,999 + tax before any of their grants are applied – i.e. £5000 less than us.
As for hydrogen, anyone who thinks that is the way forward is either naive, doesn’t know schoolboy physics or is getting paid off. I used to think it was a good idea ten years ago, until I did the maths. It requires massive investment in infrastructure, wastes two thirds of the energy that goes into making it and it takes just as long to fill a 7000 PSI tank as an EV rapid charge. If you do a well-to-wheel analysis of the CO2 emissions from electrolysed hydrogen, you’ll find that you might as well drive a Ferrari. Why on earth would I want to go back to having to drive somewhere and hand over 20p a mile when I get a ‘tank’ each morning for 2p a mile in my garage?
If we must have a liquid fuel to replace petrol – and it may still have a place for range extenders in larger vehicles in the foreseeable – the obvious answer is methanol. It has pretty much all the advantages of hydrogen when used in a closed cycle (i.e. CO2 taken out of the air to make it) but can be distributed at room temperature through the normal petrol station infrastructure.
I recommend you take a look at these two articles on hydrogen and have a rethink…
http://fuelcellforum.com/reports/E21.pdf
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-methanol-alternative
David Peilow says
and this one…
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-hydrogen-hoax
Felix Kramer says
It could be that plug-in vehicles will remain a small percentage of new-vehicle for the next few years, absent major battery breakthroughs. In fact, they are under threat at this point, as many governments around the world are considering reducing vehicle subsidies. All of the ways they offer a better driving experience than internal combustion vehicles may not be enough to make a difference. But this is not a conversation that ends with “oh well…better luck next time.” Because we won’t get another next time.
But the conversation leaves out that many PEV advocates got into this because of larger issues — especially energy security and climate change, As long as we presume “business as usual,” the chances for rapid adoption of PEVs are very iffy. But the world doesn’t have much time left to wake up about the fact that we are headed toward self-destruction. Climate change, despite being ignored, or described as a long-away problem, will have disastrous effects for us, in our lifetimes.
If you haven’t read it yet, read “Global Warming’s Terrifying New Math: Three simple numbers that add up to global catastrophe – and that make clear who the real enemy is” by Bill McKibben
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/global-warmings-terrifying-new… and the resulting national campaign about to begin at http://math.350.org/.
If successful, this campaign will start to shift the scales toward renewable, low-carbon fuels, and the short-term advantages of petroleum-powered transportaition will start to recede. If not successful, good luck to all of us!
Cars UK says
Of course we should be looking for alternatives, but BEVs just aren’t the way until (and unless) battery technology manages a quantum leap.
Climate change is a given, but man made climate change? Perhaps not. Do we really believe that the fraction of one per cent of greenhouse gases man puts in to the atmosphere is skewing the climate? As for ‘warming’, there have been no increases in mean global temperatures in the last 15 years.
As for energy security, the US wouldn’t need to import any oil if just 30 per cent of US drivers changed to diesel (as they have in Europe) for their cars.
Ebike Guy says
“Do we really believe that the fraction of one per cent of greenhouse gases man puts in to the atmosphere is skewing the climate?” If by “we,” you mean virtually every scientist qualified to discuss the matter, then the answer is a clear “Yes.”
Cars UK says
Perhaps the ‘we’ who look at historic CO2 levels and see the current rise as entirely cyclical and related to solar activity? Or the ‘we’ who remember a similarly eminent group of scientists proclaiming, just a generation ago, that we were heading in to a new ice age and governments needed to make plans for the devastation that would wreak? Scepticism is the only check on hypothetical assumptions and extractions.
Paul Scott says
I fail to understand the need for a “quantum leap” in batteries when we can already travel upwards of 300 miles (Tesla Model S) and 100 miles (Nissan LEAF). The lower cost, and quite affordable LEAF has enough range for over 90% of American drivers’ daily needs. I’m leasing the LEAF for $260/month, less than many of my customers are paying for gas each month. In what world is this not affordable?
The 2014 model LEAF will utilize a new battery chemistry providing about 20-30% more range for the same price. The cost of batteries will continue to drop as the cost of petrol continues to rise.
Further, there are significant external costs of petrol that are not paid by those who use the fuel. Military costs here in the U.S. average about $80 billion per year according to the RAND Corp., a well respected think tank. This is exclusive of the wars for oil. The Iraq war was clearly fought because of their enormous reserves of oil. We spent $1.5 trillion on that war and lost thousands of soldiers. None of these costs are in the price of petrol at the pump. This is an enormous subsidy in blood and money to your favored fuel.
Additionally, the health costs stemming from the pollution you put into the air can be measured in the tens of billions each year. Add to that the environmental costs from oil spills such as that in the Gulf of Mexico, and the growing costs of global climate change, and you readily see that oil is costing us in ways that clearly are significant.
I would like to hear your take on these costs and why you apparently think they should not be part of the equation.
Cars UK says
You’re absolutely right that there are additional ‘costs for petrol. But so are there for electricity. Much of it is still generated from fossil fuel and the claims of ‘cheap’ running are based on the tax position vis a vis petrol. Tax electricity for vehicle use – as it would be if the world ever did take to EVs – and there would be no savings.
Steve EV says
Electric vehicle drivers are well aware of how their electricity is generated. About half elected to use only renewable sources, either solar collectors on their roof or via a green power option from the electric utility. Fuel cost is about 2 to 3 cents per mile for electricity. Those who have purchased solar collectors can look forward about two and a half years when the investment has fully amortized and their generated electricity becomes free. How much tax are you predicting to offset fuel savings I have already found?
Jeff U'Ren says
After driving my Chevy Volt plugin electric car over 20,000 miles I still can’t wait to drive it every day.
It’s by far the most fun car to drive that I have ever had. The Volt provides an exhilarating driving experience. It’s high torque electric motor delivers instant power with a quiet and smooth ride. The Volt handles better than my 3 series BMW I just sold to buy our second Volt for my wife. Yes we love these electric cars so much we have 2 now. We can charge these fun cars on our home’s cheap electricity. We don’t have to GO to a gas station. I drive 98% of the time on my Volt’s battery. But the few times when I need to keep driving farther I can just let the on-boared gasoline generator make more power to let me go 380 miles. So I can drive around on electricity most of the time and still have the range of a gas car. But if you keep plugging it in and charging it you won’t use gasoline.
I’ll never go back to old-school gas burners with their herky-jerky shifting and noisy and smelly gas engines.
If you like hi-tech, hi-performance cars than you should go test drive a Chevy Volt. It will blow your mind.
Cars UK says
If you’re going to go EV, a range extender is the only way if you want to replace an ICE car. But it’s an expensive route and over complicated. We like the Volt – it’s a clever car – but it’s far too expensive.
Jeff U'Ren says
Sorry Sir, but you are horribly wrong.
My 2 Volts are much cheaper to own than my gas cars were.
For the monthly price of the gasoline that we were using, I’m buying 2 NEW cars, AND FUELING them.
After incentives my Volts were around $35K to finance. The average car sale in the U.S. is $31K.
There are many U.S. car consumer that routinely purchase cars that are in the over $35K range.
Once you live with a car that you are NOT BUYING EXPENSIVE GASOLINE for, you then realize that huge cost savings for fuel and the better lifestyle your are living. No trips to the gas station!
Sir, you are trying to argue a financial point with consumers who have been owning these cars for years now. Your article’s scenario does not reflect my life’s experience with plugin electric cars.
They are better cars to drive, and so I would pay a little more for one, just like a BMW 3 series in the gas world.
Expect with my plugin electric car I can drive 98% of the time on my home’s cheap electricity.
With a comparable gas car in that price range you have to pay way more for the fuel to run it.
You have to pay way more for the cost to maintain it.
I had to pay twice as much to insure my old BMW 3 that I pay for my Volt as it has the highest safety rating of any car. So cheaper to insure.
Sir, you are arguing with people who own and love plugin cars because they now know from their own experience that plugin electric cars are a better consumer products than gasoline gas. PERIOD!
Cars UK says
Again, the motor industry is saying that BEVs are not a viable replacement for ICE cars. The Volt/Ampera is not a BEV. The range-extender is a choice for buyers who want a short-term advantage from the joy of plugging their car in at home to use electricity for shorter journeys and are able – and willing – to pay a premium price for the pleasure.
Range-extenders are not an alternative to mainstream budget cars as the technology alone costs more than a new budget car in many parts of the world. The cost advantage for fuel only exists because taxation on electricity from the grid is minimal; if it were taxed at the same rate as diesel/petrol – which it would be if there were a big rise in usage – that advantage would disappear. Plus, if you agree that CO2 is damaging, then electricity generation in many parts of the world is still primarily fossil fuel based making EVs as ’emitting’ as an economical diesel.
Jeff U'Ren says
You are stuck in the present and you choose to see the bad and not the possibilities
You don’t acknowledge the change that is going on already.
You don’t understand paradigm changes. You are still thinking in gas car terms.
My mini-luxury Chevy Volts are budget cars. Their combined monthly cost is lower than I WAS paying AND I’M DRIVING NEW HI-TECH, HI-PERFORMACE CARS.
Electric cars, BEVs or PHEV ALLOW you to choose your fuel source. Half of all electric cars owners now have home solar install and run their homes and cars on a solar system that is the cost of a kitchen remodel. Here in California we can be net zero electric customers and pay almost nothing for grid power as we sell it back to the electric companies. It’s the law here. Germany has an even better plan as you can actually make money selling you solar systems power back to the grid.
So no taxation on your own power generation.
Coal use is diminishing here in the U.S. as cheaper and cleaner natural gas is plentiful. Still not the best as solar and wind are gaining market share here we will see an even cleaner electric grid. They are still huge growth industries.
As the electric grid gets cleaner, all electric cars get cleaner. Gas car get dirtier as they age.
Remember,it takes a lot of electricity to make a gallon of gas! So why make it?
Once we use less gasoline in our commuter cars, fuel for truck and airliners will be a lot cheaper as oil demand lessens.
Good economics for the masses.
Cars UK says
That really is not what we’re saying at all.
We do say that BEVs are not a replacement for the ICE car, and maybe never will be (the will perhaps always be 5-10 years away, as Ford said in 1966). Range extenders are a viable option if you can afford the purchase price and yes, if you’re lucky to live in a place where the sun shines, you can generate your own electricity. For most, that’s not really an option and nor is the cost of a home solar installation.
As for clean electricity, that is the right route to go, whether you buy in to the CO2 stuff or not, electricity generation with a lot less of the stuff that really matters – like NOx and particulates – being emitted has to be the goal. But whether solar is viable around the world or tidal or geothermal or cold fusion(!) is all about pursuing those directions and seeing what becomes viable.
But our beef is that BEVs (please note: BEVs, not range-extenders) are not a viable alternative to the ICE car even though they’ve been heralded as such for a century. As a niche product for a niche market they’re great. But that’s it.
Jeff U'Ren says
Also, the motor industry has done a poor job of deciding what kind of vehicles to make.
We here in the U.S. have had to constantly legislate change in the motor industry to make them make safer and better cars for American consumers. We wanted seat belts, airbags, catalytic convertors, higher milage cars, etc. All had to be forced by law. Now we save tens of thousands of lives in our safer and cleaner cars.
Now we are forcing our motor industry to make plugin electric cars. Some like GM and Nissian see the future wisdom in getting a jump on competition in that market. Now almost all OEMs behind the scenes are working on BEVs and PHEVs. They know that this technology will prevail eventually.
But I wouldn’t hold them up as some sort of default authority on what cars the buying public wants. It takes great vision to do that.
Know one knew they wanted an iPhone till Apple made it and marketed it. Consumers weren’t asking for it.
A visionary just made it and put it out and it sold like crazy over time.
You have to take risks to make a stand-out product and that’s hard for most OEMs to do.
But the race is on now and you can become a rock-star if you will listen more to users than those stuffy corporate types. 🙂
David Peilow says
The tax argument is a red herring. The duty on petrol is £0.59 of the £1.40 a litre you pay at the pump. If they transferred that duty to electricity for the equivalent distance, we’d still be way, way better off.
A range extender that runs 40 miles on electricity can cover up to 95% of journeys, as we Volt/Ampera drivers are showing. The following was sample taken over three quarters of a million journeys in the US:
http://is.gd/J3Lq2V
And the picture is the same in the UK:
http://is.gd/Bxypnd
The Top Gear-esque power station CO2 argument is also bogus. The Ampera produces 69g/km when charged from the UK grid. That is much better than any equivalent sized or performing car. A pure BEV like the i-MiEV is below 60g/km. However most of use by electricity from low CO2 producers like Good Energy and/or use solar. Once again you are off the mark with your comments about the viability of solar: A 3.5 kWp array in central England will produce enough electricity to drive the Ampera 13,000 miles a year, which is above average annual mileage in the UK. A 3.5 kWp array is 14 panels, which take up the same area as a single car garage roof.
It is also perfectly possible and economic to store solar power in stationary batteries in the day time for true zero emission charging at night, and such an array will enable the Ampera to be charged without resorting to the grid at all between February and November, with a fraction of the charging power imported from the grid during the winter.
Even if all the cars in Britain were EVs, all 31 million of them could be charged overnight for average mileage without any change to the grid. It would just smooth out the night time troughs in demand that mean assets are under-utilised today.
I agree that BEVs are a niche product – if that niche is virtually every two car family in the country. How many days to both cars need to go over 100 miles? I’d say very, very few based on the above graphs. I know families who have bought a BEV who quickly find that it becomes their main car.
So I think it’s fair to say you need to go back to school on many of these issues. Fortunately once people ride in or drive the Ampera, see the sort of savings I am making and think about their own situation, they soon want one themselves. I’ve got several people now looking at BEVs or PHEVs because of it. It looks like this revolution is going to have to be by word of mouth, because the media is certainly failing their readership on it.
Cars UK says
Yes, range-extenders are great and BEVs have their place but they are NOT (BEVs) mainstream ready and not a viable option as a replacement for the ICE car.
Ebike Guy says
“We’ve had both Hyundai and Toyota come out in recent weeks to announce they will not be pursuing electric cars in the foreseeable future…” You must be talking about a different “Toyota” than the company I know, because the “Toyota” I am familiar with just introduced the fully-electric Rav4EV.
Cars UK says
But the RAV4 EV is it. There were plans to roll out the iQ EV widely but they’ve been dropped and Toyota will not be further developing their EV range.
Ebike Guy says
Your response is nonsensical. First, you state that Toyota is not pursuing electric cars. When this assertion is debunked, your fall-back position is to state that they are not pursuing as many electric cars as they could be. The truth is that Toyota is pursuing electric cars, devoting millions of dollars to the endeavor. Now what will you say? “Yes, but they could be devoting billions?!”
Cars UK says
Perhaps Toyota’s own assertions on their EV plans will resolve this?
Ebike Guy says
Perhaps your biased interpretations of cherry-picked quotes from Toyota executives whose words are not in sync with the company’s actions will resolve nothing.
Cars UK says
Not ‘Cherry Picking’ but a statement of Toyota’s position. They are NOT pursuing EVs any further at present. In fact, they are not even convinced the plug-in Prius is the route they want to continue with as sales are running at just 20% of expectations.
Paul Scott says
Well, that’s your opinion.
I’ll give you mine.
I began protesting the destruction of electric cars ten years ago and now make my living selling the LEAF for a Los Angeles area dealer. I also sell residential and commercial solar PV systems through SolarCity.
I’ve been driving production EVs for ten years and powering them with solar-generated electricity. The cars work flawlessly 100% of the time. They are fast, powerful, quiet, and remember, they run on sunlight.
Virtually no maintenance.
The ROI for my car and energy generating system was over 10%. And it gave me a lifestyle that I love.
We now have about 40,000 plugin car drivers in the U.S., up from about 3,000 just two years ago. A high percentage of them are using solar as well. This is the future as anyone who has driven a LEAF or Volt will attest.
And if you don’t get thrilled by those, drive the Model S Tesla. It’s the best car in the world, hands down.
These carmakers in the article make me chuckle. I work for their competition and I’m selling lots of LEAFs. 100% of my customers say it’s the best car they’ve ever owned. They are extremely happy to have thrown away oil forever and pay LESS for the privilege.
So, by all means, Hyundi and Toyota, do curtail your plug-in program. The clearer the field, the more LEAFs I sell. In less than 2 years, you’ll realize your mistake.
Cars UK says
There will always be a market, it’s just too small to justify production. Yes, there are added benefits if you live in a sunshine state – but most of the world doesn’t. Even then, it’s expensive, heavy old technology that will never be mass market viable until battery technology improves at least ten fold. And frankly, it’s hardly improves in the last century.
What was the US target for LEAF sales this year? 20k? Last time we looked they’d sold 5-6k. It’s not a viable business model, even if the car suits the lifestyle of you and your customers.
Jeff U'Ren says
Sir, It amazes me that you seem to find a way to exploit any perceived negative thing about plugin electric cars. You must be a real bummer to hang out with.
I choose to see the emerging plugin electric car market as something exciting to watch and be involved with by owning these fun cars. I know no one will want a gas car in years to come.
I feel good championing these truly new types of cars. A much better product for consumers as we can keep more of our money instead for wasting it on gasoline.
Every new disruptive technology starts out in low volume. Then it explodes in a few years once the public understands it and embraces it. Like home computers, Cellphones, CDs, DVDs, flat-screnn TVs, movie downloads. This list goes on. All very expensive at first but now cheap enough for all to have and not live without.
Really, you would benefit from a simple class in marketing, finance and economics.
Learn more about plugin cars and than write knowingly about them.
Stop defending your flawed article. You are looking foolish.
It’s OK to make a mistake. Many are stilling getting up to speed with plugin cars. They are not like gas cars at all in almost every way.
DO a test. Sit in your garage with YOUR car on and I’ll sit in my garage with MY car on.
Hint: You won’t be reading about me in the news. 🙂
Paul Scott says
A “ten fold” increase in battery technology would put the cost of the LEAF well under that of Harley Davidson motorcycle. It’s apparent you have a problem with math.
There are significant external costs of petrol that are not paid by those who use the fuel. Military costs here in the U.S. average about $80 billion per year according to the RAND Corp., a well respected think tank. This is exclusive of the wars for oil. The Iraq war was clearly fought because of their enormous reserves of oil. We spent $1.5 trillion on that war and lost thousands of soldiers. None of these costs are in the price of petrol at the pump. This is an enormous subsidy in blood and money to your favored fuel.
Additionally, the health costs stemming from the pollution you put into the air can be measured in the tens of billions each year. Add to that the environmental costs from oil spills such as that in the Gulf of Mexico, and the growing costs of global climate change, and you readily see that oil is costing us in ways that clearly are significant.
I would like to hear your take on these costs and why you apparently think they should not be part of the equation.
Cars UK says
A ten fold increase in the capacity of batteries is what is needed
J. Marvin Campbell says
I would hazard a guess that the author of this article has absolutely no real-world experience owning or operating an EV. I find EV and firearm acceptance to be remarkably similar: Virulently anti-gun friends are the easiest converts once you get them to a range and put a gun in their hands. Nobody preaches louder than the reformed sinner:^O
Cars UK says
LOL! Essentially, the article is about the views of the motor industry. We do agree that BEVs are NOT a replacement for an ICE car but we do love the torque of electric motors and see the range-extender as a viable option for those who can afford it. As for the views of the writer of this article on guns, it’s probably fair to say that, in common with the view of most Brits, they’re great in controlled environments but Joe Public shouldn’t be let loose with them on the streets.
Not dissimilar to most Brits’ view on EVs!