E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Tyrone Siu / Reuters
Nissan Leaf electric car.
By Paul A. Eisenstein, TheDetroitBureau.com
If the White House hopes to meet its ambitious goal of putting 1.5 million battery cars on the road by mid-decade it better hope that 2011 wasn’t a good indication of what Americans think of electric vehicles.
Add them all up, hybrids, plug-ins and pure battery-electric vehicles, or BEVs, and they accounted for little more than 2% of the U.S. automotive market last year. Remove conventional gas-electric models, such as the Toyota Prius and Ford Fusion Hybrid, from the equation and more advanced battery vehicles generated barely 20,000 sales.
“I’d say they failed,” proclaims Joe Phillippi, chief analyst with AutoTrends Consulting.
For his part, David Sullivan, of AutoPacific, Inc., isn’t quite ready to go that far, but he sees 2012 as the really critical year. The limited demand for electric vehicles, so far, has largely been driven by the early adopters, contends Sullivan. “Now we’ll see if there’s broader consumer demand.”
That’s going to be critical as the industry ramps up battery car production capacity and an assortment of new models charge into showrooms.
While there are a variety of products already on the market, most come from niche manufacturers that barely even register on the sales charts. Last year brought the introduction of two closely watched mainstream models: the Chevrolet Volt plug-in hybrid and the Nissan Leaf BEV.
General Motors had declared a goal of selling 10,000 Volts but will likely end the year at around 7,000. The good news for the maker was that momentum had been building during the final quarter but then Chevy found itself in the uncomfortable position of having to explain why several Volts caught fire weeks after being subjected to federal crash tests.
Though there have been reports that last month’s sales were down sharply, GM spokesman Rob Peterson contends, “December sales are solid – definitely not “down sharply” as reported.”
But there’s no question the timing of the news was bad, coming just as GM was getting ready to boost production to 60,000 for all of 2012, 45,000 of those earmarked for the U.S. The results of an investigation into the problem by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration could clear Volt — or cause it significant problems if a redesign of its battery pack proves necessary.
Nissan came closer to its 2011 target, though it will likely fall a little short of the 10,000 mark when December sales are revealed later this week. The maker can explain at least some of that away by pointing to the March 11 Japanese earthquake and tsunami that interrupted production for several months. But Leaf sales have been slipping for several months, a worrying sign as Nissan prepares to open a new facility in Smyrna, Tennessee capable of churning out 200,000 battery cars annually.
There are a number of reasons why proponents believe American buyers aren’t plugging into battery cars. For one thing, there’s still a relatively limited range of choices available. But that won’t be an excuse in 2012.
The options coming to market are broad, ranging from the Fisker Karma, a plug-in sports car, to the Ford Focus Electric. There are electric minicars, like the new Mitsubishi i, and big SUVs, including the Jeep Grand Cherokee and Mercedes-Benz ML350 that Ohio-based Amp Electric is converting to run on battery power. There will be mainstream offerings, such as the Toyota RAV-4 Electric, and products from aggressive start-ups, such as Tesla’s new Model S sedan.
The Model S will aim to overcome one of the biggest drawbacks of battery power, offering buyers a choice of a base Model S with a range of 160-miles, or optional 230- or 300-mile battery packs, the latter adding $20,000 to the price tag. Most other pure BEVs are limited to less than 100 miles per charge.
Even then, they aren’t cheap, battery vehicles saddled by price tags that are thousands – in some cases, tens of thousands – of dollars more than comparable gasoline vehicles.
That might make sense had fuel prices held at the near-record levels seen in early 2011, but gas has dropped sharply since then. Meanwhile, manufacturers have been making major strides when it comes to the fuel efficiency of conventional, gas-powered vehicles. In the compact segment where Ford will compete with the Focus Electric, for example, 40 mpg on the highway is the new norm.
Both government bureaucrats and electric vehicle manufacturers, says analyst Sullivan, “aren’t giving consumers credit for being able to do the math. It just doesn’t make economic sense” to buy an electric vehicle – at least if your primary goal is to save money by reducing your energy bills.
There are, of course, other reasons. There’s the desire to clean up the air and to curb oil imports, especially from the Mideast. But whether that can be used to draw more buyers into the market remains to be seen. Especially in this economy, value is the big motivator, rather than politics and social concerns.
So, the industry will have a big challenge ahead finding ways to lure customers into the showroom and getting them to drive off in a hybrid, plug-in or battery-electric vehicle. The past year certainly didn’t live up to expectations. So, the coming year will be the big test.
More from The Detroit Bureau:
Late Upturn in 2011 Likely to Set Stage for Stronger 2012
Leave a Comment:
"There are, of course, other reasons. There’s the desire to clean up the air and to curb oil imports, especially from the Mideast. But whether that can be used to draw more buyers into the market remains to be seen. "
Remains to be seen? Hardly. Very few people are going to spend thousands more on a car for the above reasons.
That's especially true when you realize the electricity is mainly coming from coal fired electric generating plants.
Agreed. It's like solar panels for homes. Unless you live in a very generous state and city with high tax credits, it is not worth it to put solar panels on your home. The payback time on them is way too long, and the upfront cost is way too high. If/when the payback time is ~10-12years, then you might see some buyers, but at 20-25 years, it isn't worth it to be an early adopter.
The battery powered vehicles and their siblings of mixed power plants are a big failure. This was predicted before this nonsense got a hold of the nerds of the world. Here you have it - it does not work and costs more than the "normal" cars. To add another thought to you "greenees", so far the battery crap has not cycled to where new batteries are needed for these clunkers. Wait until this cost hits you and the cost for getting rid off the old poisonous batteries needs to be factored in.
Don't forget where your electricity for these dinosaurs comes from though!!!
The major impediment to widespread adoption of electrically powered cars (in the warm south) is the inability to rapidly recharge the system. Even if there are recharge stations on eveny corner it still takes too long to get recharged. MIT may have the answer. Pourable batteries. Read the link. If we could get pourable batteries every gas station would be a 5 minute recharge station. Then the electric cars could compete with iol powered cars. Don't cry "But where does the electricity come from - Oil!" No - from photovoltaic and wind on the top of the gas stations...
http://blog.batteries.com/battery-news/mit-develops-new-lightweight-battery-design/
gdvegas - You would describe the Toyota Prius as "a big failure"? That is laughable.
It takes about one acre of lan to generate enough wats with current average solar power to drive an electric care about 80 miles. Since you lose about 25% of that power in transmission from production point to consumer, you are now down to about 60 miles per acre. You also lose same power in transmission from Coal, Gas, Oil, Hydro, Wind and Nuke plants. Not a very effecient way to power our vehicles.
I'd never buy one until charging stations are as plentiful as gas stations. I live in an apartment so I can't charge the thing at home. I really don't think running an 50 yard extension cord out my upstairs window, across two other buildings, and into the parking lot would cut it.
When you have Big Oil lobbying on Corruption Hill, DC with several congressmen and senators holding oil stocks, Obama's goal will not happen!
Have any of Obama's goals been met? He starts losing ground right after he gives his speeches describing his goals. The reality is that his crowning healthcare achievment is being punched full of holes weekly. Two months ago, my company just experienced the biggest rise in our healthcare insurance costs ever. He prevents us from harvesting our own natural resources thinking the more painful it is for us regular folks, the sooner he can get those pesky affordable gas powered vehicles off the road. Some of us will be able to afford these high priced electrical powered experiments, but some will just have to stop driving. Of course our leaders will still be riding in those gas guzzlers without any concerns whatsoever.
Toyota has sold over 2 million Prii, several hundred thousand every year. That is by any definition "a success". They certainly do work, too, batteries and electric motors have fewer moving parts and are far more reliable than any internal combustion engine.
As for that "the batteries will fail soon and cost a bundle to replace" myth, it's already been discredited, there are 10 year old Priuses and RAV4-EVs that are still using their original NiMH batteries, they work, and yes, they are recyclable. Do you have a problem with getting rid of toxic used motor oil?
Electricity comes from many sources, several of which produce little or no pollution, and all of which are local, not imported like oil is. Also, "driving electric" costs 2 to 3 cents per mile, whereas driving on gas costs 7 cents (efficient hybrid) to 32 cents (guzzler) per mile.
CM says "driving electric" costs 2 to 3 cents per mile
My electricity costs 13.5-cents per kwh (central Indiana, mostly from "cheap" coal-fired plants) plus a 7% sales tax, making it 14.4-cents per kwh. If a pure electric vehicle can operate a mile for 3-cents, that means that vehicle will go a mile on less than 1/4 of a kilowatt-hour of charging power - total, including all the heat loss during charge, resistive loss in the battery-wiring-motors, rolling resistance, mechanical friction, aero drag, accessories in the car, etc.
I would have to see it to believe it.
@old-pilot: 75% efficiency for an EV is ~3x BETTER than an internal combustion engine. Actually, electric transmission is around 93% efficient, which makes your argument even more laughable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power_transmission
$10K price difference! I can buy a lot of gas even at $5 for $10K.
I like how the media and the followers write off a car in its first year. It has only just been available in the whole country, and even then in many places it is still hard to find one, so that makes it a fail. Lets see what happens when they are widely available in all markets.
@Devil's Son "$10K price difference! I can buy a lot of gas even at $5 for $10K".
Don't forget to factor a lot of maintenance expense for your gasoline engine. Electrics have virtually no maintenance at all. Plus, if we ever get to enjoy those old fashioned gas lines, well ... ENJOY! I'll enjoy the ease and convenience of fueling at home.
@ john in Indiana actual power loss is a variable based on distance between production and consumption
17mi for 10% loss and 83mi for 50% loss. I picked 25% as an average distance between the two points.
You can stop laughing now and take a large portion of humble pie. Electric power rates vary widely around the world per watt and it is strongly regulated and supported by governments in some places. My main point is that requiring 1 acre of land to get my or your sorry butt to our daily task and back is a poor use of resources. Burning fossil fuels to produce electricty with an initial loss of about 25 % in transmission is equally stupid. You simply transfer the polution produced from one loctation to another with the additional 25% penality. The only real solution to the problem is for you to stay at home and continue to stare at your own navel.
I'm sick and tired of "news" articles like this one. I expected them, and here they are in all their misinformed glory.
The REAL reason for the low numbers is.........limited first year production runs. NOT consumer snubbing, NOT fancy calculus that erroneously inflates costs. NOT a failing of the tech in it's first year.
The fact is, you are on a waiting list if you want a Leaf, and the list is long.
The anti-EV propaganda gets thicker and thicker and I'm about to tell MSNBC to stuff it. Progressive "News" outlet my arse.
The only "real news" these days comes from outside the US.
That's all you got?
Seriously?
What are you, 12?
You may tolerate outlandish lies from the media, but I won't. Particularly this lie about EVs. It's long past time to put these liars in their proper place. They have been doing this for over 20 years now.
@old pilot: You are attempting to argue that EVs are not efficient, yet you ignore the fact that the well-to-wheel efficiency of EV technology is between 2 and 3 times MORE efficient, including the transmission or transportion of the fuel to the vehicle, than conventional internal combustion engine powered vehicles. True, those losses and emissions occur at different locations in that path. But higher WTW efficiency, regardless of the technology or fuel used, means less impact on the environment and reduced consumption of energy.
Tell me how that pie tastes.
@mailman8: “If a pure electric vehicle can operate a mile for 3-cents, that means that vehicle will go a mile on less than 1/4 of a kilowatt-hour of charging power - total, including all the heat loss during charge, resistive loss in the battery-wiring-motors, rolling resistance, mechanical friction, aero drag, accessories in the car, etc”.
If electricity is 15¢ per kwh, and operating a ‘pure electric’ car is claimed to cost 3¢ per mile, then the power consumption would be:
At 30 mph: 3¢ x 30miles = 90¢ per hour. Then 90¢ per hour /15¢ per kwh = 6 kw average draw.
At 60 mph: 3¢ x 60miles = $1.80 per hour. Then $1.80 per hour /15¢ per kwh = 12 kw average draw.
Did I miss something?
Toyota did not help with this, since their plug-in Prius will cost $32K, $9K more than the base model and only go 12-15 miles on a charge. That fits my driving pretty well, but I am not paying that. I am ready to buy one at a premium of $3.5K, but $2.5K is Federal tax credit. They may find some dopes to pay that, but I won't be one fo them.
The new Consumer Reports magazine shows that Chevy Volt owners have the highest owner satisfaction of any car surveyed. 89% of owners said that they would buy another Volt.
You mean the ones that still have them. Guess you and Consumer Reports missed the fact the the Chevy Volt has been recalled for safety issues (exploding batteries).
Proudamericanveteran - Volt owners are NOT returning their cars, nor is there a recall. The batteries have not exploded. There are dubious reports that a couple have caught fire, weeks after impact from accident testing. Seems to me that gasoline cars have also been known to catch fire after an accident.
The main reason sales numbers on electric cars are still small are mainly because their are few options for purchasing them. Even now, you cannot walk onto a Nissan lot and purchase a Leaf the same day. Locally, there's a 4 month wait. You doubters should just hide and watch as 2012 progresses, and these vehicles become available. I'm waiting on the Toyota Rav4EV.
An yet, on the "Most popular Posts" banner on this page, there's "The Biggest Product Flops of 2011," with the Chevy Volt solidly in the middle of that list.
I expect it will later make an early appearance on the "Worst cars ever" list in 2012 or 2013.
--
¢ommon ¢ents
AKA @CommonCentsUSA
Common
The important opinions come from the actual owners of the vehicles ...... the detractors tend to represent non-owners.
Richod, nice job putting proud in his place. What I don't understand is why are conserva-nutsies so opposed to the idea of an electric vehicle???
Shouldn't one of our (as in ALL OF US) main goals be to start moving us away from foreign oil? If so, then why do they oppose them so much?
It's like they have conflicting goals....they always talk about getting away from foreign oil, but at the same time, they want to still use oil as much as we ever did. You can have it both ways.
@don97524, I'm pretty sure I don't have to actually eat a turd to know that turds don't taste good or offer much nutritional value. I also don't have to buy a poorly designed, poorly executed vehicle to know that it's not what I need.
People who do buy them might be saying good things to try to convince themselves they didn't make a big mistake.
The fact that GM could only sell 125 of the Volts in July should say something about the quality of these vehicles. They also had problems with dealerships buying the things and titling them to the dealership to claim the $7,500 tax credits. Dealers don't spend their own money on vehicles that sell. They finance their inventory and will only outright buy cars if they've been sitting in inventory so long the finance company won't carry them any longer. (I used to be in management at a car dealership, I know a little about this kind of thing.)
@don97524 wrote:
@Rob in Warwick NY, I'm not opposed to the idea of electric vehicles. I'm opposed to the idea that we need the government to pony up billions of dollars to support an uncompetitive technology and try to override market forces which make it completely impractical.
If someone can make an electric powered vehicle, or a solar powered vehicle or wind powered vehicle that is competitive with my car or SUV, I'd buy it.
@Rob in Warwick NY wrote:
If you want to invest your money in research and development, go for it. What I oppose is that you want to take my money (through taxation) and force me to pay for the research and development so that other fools who can't afford to finance their own R&D might be able to make money at it (only by taking even more from my taxes in "tax credits" and other subsidies).
As for oil, I'm all for domestic oil and North American oil instead of buying oil from Venezuela and the Middle East. What do you have against that? We've got lots of energy resources in the United States, and more in Canada and Mexico.
--
¢ommon ¢ents
AKA @CommonCentsUSA
Common - For national security reasons (as well as many other good reasons), it's in the U.S. interest to get America off our addiction to imported oil as quickly as possible. While market forces would eventually accomplish it, it would take dangerously too long to bring prices and EV technology into the mainstream without government support. You state that "...if someone can make an electric powered vehicle ...that is competitive with my car or SUV, I'd buy it". Well, that kind of tech doesn't just happen overnight. Just as we see with flat screen TV's. tablet computers, etc ... prices quickly come down, just as quality goes up. This area of R&D is essential for the future of our country.
Common
The fact remains that owners of Volts would buy another Volt. And I have no doubt that you will continue to rant about many things that you are ignorant about, relying on your very fallible "common cents".
Oil is a vanishing source of energy, a truth which you appear to deny. The United States has approximately 3% of the world's petroleum supply ..... good luck with that domestic thing, common.
Why not use biodiesel fuel? A properly designed diesel motor could run on almost any oil. I can't see big trucks running on batteries unless they can have atomic batteries. I want a diesel car. All the gas stations in my area sell diesel and none of them sell the E-85 gasohol.
I would not spend the money to buy a Volt or a Prius. I would rather spend that same money on something that has a V8 in it.
Furthermore; I don't buy the theory we are causing global warming and secondly I believe in my personal comfort ( with plenty of horsepower to boot) in whatever vehicle I buy.
Lastly, until we can figure out how to become energy independent; these expensive electric go carts Obama wants everyone to drive will still require a battery charge by a fossil fuel powered generator.
As far as the majority of Volt owners being happy with their vehicles; well good for them - it is their money (its a good thing cause they dropped a lot of money for such a small car). That doesnt mean the vast majority of American drivers wgo buy them would feel the same.
Maybe we have an area of agreement here.
@Richod wrote:
I could agree that we should have the "tax credit" for buying an electric vehicle be about the same as the "tax credit" we allowed for buying an iPhone, or the original Macintosh computer, or one of those first generation big flat screen plasma HDTV's. Actually, since a vehicle purchase typically is five to ten times as expensive as those first big screen HDTV's, I'd even say we might multiply that "tax credit" by ten. So, what was the tax credit for buying the early big screen HDTV's? Or what was the "tax credit" for buying an iPhone?
And I'd even agree to spend maybe ten times as much subsidizing R&D for electric vehicles as we did subsidizing the development of the iPhone, or the xBox 360, or that first Macintosh computer. So, how much federal "research and development grant money" did Microsoft get to develop the xBox? How much did the taxpayers contribut to Apple to develop the Macintosh?
Actually, by subsidizing the Volt, we've pushed an inferior product into production and expended capital that might better have been invested in R&D to improve the product. Right now, the Volt has a 435 pound battery that has the energy capacity of about 7 pounds of gasoline. That's not a very good ratio. Major improvements are needed before these things are viable.
One thing I can agree with, we need more Henry Fords in the world today. He paid his workers enough to make his Model T's that his workers could actually afford to buy his products. We don't have enough of that right now. Henry Ford didn't need government subsidies to do that, though, and we don't need government to accomplish that again.
@don97524 wrote:
Actually, there's generally a known proven reserve to last decades, and before that runs out, we usually find more. The thing is, once there are a few decades of known reserves in the world, people kind of stop looking.
Also, if you include oil shale, the United states has enough reserves within the United states to last a century or more.
We are far closer to having the technology to efficiently produce gasoline from oil shale than we are to a one hundred-fifty pound battery that stores enough energy to power an electric vehicle for 400 to 600 miles.
--
¢ommon ¢ents
AKA @CommonCentsUSA
Common, since you seem so opposed to spending your tax dollars subsidizing EVs, then we must assume that you are also against subsidizing big oil. Right? RIGHT??
That's right John, let's stop subsidizing big oil and then really see how competition works.
The numbers game concerning hidden oil costs is disgraceful in it's dishonesty.
The fact is, even when fueled by coal fired electric plants, Evs are STILL 40% more efficient. And you know what else? That coal comes from Kentucky, Pennsylvania, West Virginia, ...!
Those are AMERICAN electrons instead of ARAB oil. You stinking anti American "patriots" need to get off the foreign teat and buy American power!
Until there is a reasonable SUPPLY of Nissan Leaf's on dealer showrooms, how can one possibly say that sales are slow due to low consumer demand. The waiting list for the Nissan Leaf is long, and the cars are not sitting on the lot for consumers to go out and see and test drive. To say sales are slow due to a lack of supply does not mean that consumers don't want them, it could mean that consumers simply cannot get them in reasonable numbers. You can't sell off an empty cart and say that sales are slow.
Well said, Ken!
Exactly right Ken! Limited production runs are being misconstrued by our dishonest corporate media as being low sales. I expected this. It is the exact same negative propaganda that surrounded the EV1.
I think it time to just tell the lying media to keep their coerced opinions to themselves. If you want real news, look outside the US.
Electric cars (Obamamobiles) will fail, just like their proponent has.
here's another one.....a conservanutsie who is opposed to the idea of using less foriegn oil because somehow he thinks Obama came up with the idea of the electric car????
wow....mind numbing.
Rob - You're right. You see the same tired, and ignorant pseudo-arguments against electric cars over and over. Oil industry enthusiasts, Obama haters, and people afraid of positive change ... they're all here. I guess these people think that it's better to send hundreds of BILLIONS of $$ overseas to maintain our unhealthy addiction to stinky oil.
This might win the most ignorant post on the thread. Keep 'em coming champ!
The Volt project started in 2006, with the first concept displayed in January of 2007, that was well before Obama became President, even before he started his campaign. In fact, it typically takes 5 years for a new auto model to go from initial idea to actual sales, so all the plug-in cars for sale this year started their development before Obama became President. Moreover, the "auto bailout" was signed into law by President Bush before he left office, and Bush also signed off on the tax rebate "subsidies" for sales of plug-in cars (including but not limited to the Volt), and Bush even signed the "Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing" loan program law that resulted in loans to Ford, Fiskar, and Tesla Motors for US manufacturing of plug-in cars. So, no, regardless of what some pundits may say, there is no "Obama-mobile".
But some right-wing pundits have already failed.
The Volts will probably start selling like hot cakes once we get into the mess with Iran and the straight of Hormuz, and see $200 a barrel oil !!!
As Charlie Chaplin greatly said, " To those who can hear me, I say "Do not despair." The misery that is now upon us is but the passing of greed, the bitterness of men who fear the way of human progress."
I like the idea of an electric vehicle but until they are affordable (for the average person) and there is a viable infrastructure to support them, I'll stick with my "old-fashioned" gas guzzler.
What, somebody wants this to make economic sense? This is a gov't program....what's economic sense got to do with anything? No problem...the Soviets already figured this kind of problem out...the gov't buys 1.5 million electric vehicles and stores them is salt mines in Nevada (or wherever salt mines are). In fact, they can buy them for $50K each, or $60K, whatever, it's only taxpayers money, who cares? Then hold a press conference and declare victory for electric cars. Say, how many windmills are stored in the salt mines...along with the Solyndra solar cell panels? What's all the worry about....we know how to do this.
If that were the case, wouldn't Solyndra be declared a success and not a failure? LOGIC FAIL!
No, you've just stated a paranoid teapublican fantasy that has no basis in reality. Where there is sufficient winds, there are windmill farms, they're not sticking them in salt mines or anywhere else there isn't enough winds. Plug-in cars are on the road, being driven by happy customers, no need to "salt them away".
I kinda like that Volt....was thinking real hard about getting one....I don't think burning up in your electric car is too big a sacrifice to make in the cause of...cause of....oh, yeah, reduced dependence on mideast oil (or something like that). If I remember right, electric cars will be powered by electricity from Solyndra solar panels, right? In fact, I'm committed to buying an electric car as soon as those solar panels are on the market....and hooked up to my house...say, how exactly is that going to work?
No need to set up solar panels, even though prices have dropped to record lows (the reason why Solyndra went bankrupt), any source of electricity will do. Hydro, wind, geothermal, nuclear, natural gas, or even coal will work nicely, with a per-mile cost much lower than gasoline, and not a drop of petroleum fuels used.
We're just too mobile as a society, IMO. The sweet spot for most commuters is under 100 miles per charge, if they just commuted most of the time. I have a roughly 50 mile round trip. But driving 75 miles in a day isn't uncommon due to errands and going over 100 isn't rare enough to make a car that I can't trust to make it a viable option. I am not defending that; it's something I would like to see change. But right now the expectations of employers, schools and other responsibilities of a family driver make that a reality.
Oh restless and impatient ones! When gas hits $6 a gallon in a few years, you'll all be whining that the manufacturers aren't producing electric cars fast enough. Try doing something about reducing your gas consumption by buying smart and quit your griping.
Very hard to do when there are scarce jobs and people have to commute to another state to find work!
Supposedly, the inventor of the alkaline battery, Thomas Edison, told Henry Ford at a dinner party in 1896, "the electric car is dead, battery power is not practical for long term anything." Hybrid is the present best way to increase fuel efficiency
Except we are now in the 21st Century. Any new technology has shortcomings at first, but battery tech is advancing very quickly, and just as your flat screen TV, Blu-Ray player or tablet pc have continued to improve and come down in cost, so will electric vehicles. Couple that with the coming super-spike in oil/gasoline pricing, and you'll wish you had an electric vehicle in your garage. I'll be purchasing the upcoming Toyota Rav4EV as soon as it's available.
If you want electric vehicles to sell the price must be in line with their gas counterparts, and the range must be increased and/or make recharging stations more prevalent. That is the only way. Till then, expect low sales numbers.
I totally believe that electric cars are as American as apple pie..I would give up my gas burner in an instant...But I believe that true year of the test will be 2013 or, probably, 2014...By that time most of the promised electrics will actually be available...Ford Focus Electric..., national electric charging standards will have been hammered out, and a slight, but usable, grid of recharging stations will be available...
Mike - That time will come, eventually. Just like any new tech, prices are high at first ... and battery technology is improving. In the meantime, there are many people such as myself, that completely believe in the future of green vehicles (especially electric and hydrogen) and will be early adopters. Again, the current low numbers are NOT indicative of low interest, but merely a lack of product. Even with the Leaf being "available" for over a year, there is still a 4 month backlog before you can receive one. Watch things change once automakers start producing them in numbers that actually place available vehicles on the lot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_EV1
At $7500 federal tax credit thats $11.25 billion in rebates...money we don't have... that's $2.25 billion a year or 500,000 people taxes at 15% PER YEAR FOR FIVE YEARS!!!!!
teo,,with that kind of gov. help you and i could start a business,i`ll sharpen skates and you find something you like
Teo, and now do the math on how much we are sending out of this country to the middle east each year for their oil.
Rob, Good point...So why don't we approve the pipeline from Canada? Reason...political... If we had a National energy policy, we could be self sufficient in energy use in 10 years and at the same time reduce our carbon footprint. Like take the $11 billion to improve our electric transmission system or give companies a serious tax credit to upgrade their motors, boilers, etc...an investment that would pay back for decades not until these cars wore out...
I have friends who purchased a Volt four months back and love it. It has been very easy on gas, almost none used, and they got enough incentives to install a high speed charger and got a tax credit. The cars are expensive though and I doubt you would ever make up the difference in fuel savings. The Nissan Leaf is a joke! We bought two for use and experimentation for our fleet at work. We have been averaging MAYBE 50 miles between charges. Living in LA County with 4300 square miles in our boundaries makes this a very impractical car. No range and a high price tag.
Now if more people would just get on board with CNG!
The last time I looked the Volt was a gas sucking car. The Nissan Leaf is a real battery powered automobile. Electric cars would work fine in a place like Ann Arbor, Michigan. They are not so great in a State like Mississippi where I have to drive 150 miles to see a physician specialist.
They are way over-priced. Then you have the huge cost of replacing the batteries when and if they should go out, which they will eventually. They don't ravel far enough on a charge, on top of that there are no places to charge them and no cost on that yet either. I will stay with my internal combustion engine. At least I know the details on those expenses and I can get fuel anywhere.
Most people get a newer car at least once every 8 years anyway. The batteries on almost all electric vehicles are under warranty for 8 years. I don't see a problem.
someday alternative energy and maybe electric cars will be the norm.when this happens the private sector will be all over it before the left gov. types wake up.money will be made by old white guys and there will be fewer jobs.then the protests against big electric,wind,or solar will start.
100 years ago battery cars came up short. Each and every time someone tries to revive the electric car it fails. It will this time too. And the next. You just can't pack enough power into a system of batteries to every make the electric car anything other than a nitch product.
The only way any are selling at all is because the government is wasting the taxpayers money supporting this dead end industry and helping people buy the things. Without government support of both the companies and the buyers it would collapse. It is about to do that even with the help. Same with solar and wind turbines. Those markets are falling apart too.
Cheap reliable energy is what is needed and what people want. Battery, solar and wind is neither cheap nor reliable.
Read this report on someone trying to use the Nissan Leaf for a Christmas visit. Four recharges needed to go 180 miles. The trip took 6 hours.
http://nlpc.org/stories/2011/12/29/taxpayers-leaf-four-recharging-stops-needed-go-180-miles
so econo, what you are saying is OIL, OIL, OIL and that's it.
sensible.
Electric cars will not take off until they can go 300 miles or more on a single charge and recharge within 5 minutes. THAT is the standard that people in this country are used to and accept. If you can't do that for the same price of a car that can then you're simply pi ssing in the wind. Even with the government deals, incentives, and direct subsidies electric cars can't cut the cost mustard or meet the needs of most people.
Amen.
1 word. Tesla.
That's what I used to say until gas hit 4 bucks a gallon. Now I havn't been to a gas pump since 10/28/11 and still have 1/2 a tank 1700 miles later.
The general media creates ignorance by sensationalizing events. All people heard was, 'Chevy Volts are catching on fire'. I can't even tell you how many people have asked me if I'm getting rid of mine. It's for this exact reason, people don't grow their net worth and worse, never get ahead, they hear, but don't take the time to filter the noise and see the value. From cars to 401ks, most just don't get it and probably never will.
The $45K sounds like a lot, but if you look at the long term financials, it's a no brainer. I could have bought a vette, but that would not have been an investment. Let's look at the math.
-$7500 Fed rebate.
-$4000 IL state rebate.
-18K-22K fuel savings over 8 years (conservative based on historical rising gas prices since 1979 and driving 28-30 miles per day).
That's 29.5K in savings. Now if you take that $11.5K in rebates and invest it in a decent bond fund (DFLNX or other) earning 5.5% APY today, you knock off another ~$6145 in interest earned over 8 years.
Total savings and earnings=$35.6K.
The car now ends up costing only $9355 in year 8. The capital cost is now $97 per month.
Now, take away the rebates and that's a different story. The battery technology will need to get better and cheaper. My 2012 is paying dividends at a higher rate than what I thought it would and every gas pump I pass, I'm laughing all the way to the bank....
True, the first electric cars (of this century) are costly ... but that is always the case with new tech. These early vehicles will not work for everyone, but are perfect as a second car for city driving. They are emission free, electricity is MUCH cheaper than gasoline (especially in the Pacific Northwest where I live, where we have cheap hydro power), and there is virtually no maintenance on these vehicles. I suspect that is one reason car manufacturers are hesitant to put them out in large numbers. They make more $$ on maintenance of vehicles than on sales. Imagine NEVER having to stop at a gas station again! (unless you need some snacks for the road).
"...a second car for city driving..."
And HERE we see one of the great problems with the green mindset. Buy an electric car with its big carbon footprint to build so you don't spend so much on gas but then buy a SECOND car with its carbon footprint for building which does use gasoline for anything more than a few mile trip. The net result is you are buying TWO cars and the little you will save on the short "city trips" is far outweighed by the total carbon footprint of not just building the two cars, but just the footprint of building the electric car itself.
While the construction of any car has a "carbon footprint", the idea that it's anywhere close to a gasoline car has been debunked. That's an old, tired argument by many in the oil industry. Many families today need multiple vehicles, so I don't think a two car family is unusual. We currently own two hybrids, but intend to upgrade one if them to an electric ... specifically the Toyota Rav4EV, when available.
I find it funny that people will actually use the argument of carbon footprint against a clean, emission-free vehicle. I bet JJMurray's family has more than one smog producing, oil dependant vehicle in their possession.
Right so having two cars in a family is a new concept that doesn't occur with ICE vehicles. The idea that electric cars have a higher carbon footprint during manufacture is a complete fabrication of people who would really rather these vehicles not be successful. For families that have always and will always have two vehicles having one electric vehicle for commuting and errands and shorter weekend trips and one ICE for occasional longer trips seems to be a perfect set up. Battery and charging technology is rapidly improving and eventually longer trips will be practical with battery cars but at present it is a limitation. However the fact that 90% of US car trips are less than 50 miles means that at least 90% of US driving can be replaced with electric vehicles today with no inconvenience at all
I don't think it's the carbon footprint of one car versus another. If you HAVE to get a new car, by all means pick the one that is the most fuel-efficient. But don't buy a car till you really need one. I drive a 1992 Toyota. It has 110,000 miles on it. I expect to drive it to at least 200,000. The carbon footprint of CREATING the car is something worth saving. It's more than the entire carbon footprint of anything I am going to pour down the tank.
Of course, no one in the auto industry is ever going to be pushing this kind of reasoning.
Once again a common misconception, it has been consistently shown that car manufacture represents 10-15% of the lifetime carbon cost of a vehicle, fuel usage and maintenance represents 80% and disposal accounts for 5-10%. what you pour into the tank of an ICE represents 8-9 times as much carbon release as production of the car. With the current electric grid makeup including all its fossil fuel generators electric cars reduce the fuel carbon costs by 60% and the grid is getting better and better all the time whereas a gas car only get worse with time never better
obama is going to use electric vehicles during the election campaign,he is only going to speech in solar heated buildings and toufu for fund raising dinners.
speak
tofu
fundraising
The interesting thing is that the "demand" is mysteriously identical to the production numbers. These vehicles NEVER sit on lots, there are waiting lists months longs for volts and leafs. 7,000 volts sold because 7,000 volts were made, GM trying to feign disappointment at not selling 10,000 when they didn't make 10,000 to sell is ridiculous. No one yet knows what the demand is, all we know is that people are buying them as fast as they're making them and there are still waiting lists. The Tesla Model S which is due to be released july 2012 already has a 9,000 order waiting list, and joining the queue costs between $5,000 and $40,000 so doesn't just represent vague interest but serious intention, that amount of demand is before all the options and final design has been released and it is increasing at several hundred orders per week, a number likely to increase once there is actually a production car available for people to have a look at. that amount of interest in a car which is yet to be seen is incredible.
No one expects major technological changes to be completely smooth, there will always be hiccups but the general negativity towards this promising technology in the article and comments is disappointing. Costs, range and limitation of public charging infrastructure (although there already 2,100 public chargers in the US and millions of power points in peoples garage) are all areas where improvements will be made but despite these limitations there is already more demand then can be kept up with. The article is misleading, the day that they make electric vehicles that sit on lots waiting for a buyer is the day I will believe there is a demand issue, until then such claims represent either ignorance or misleading conduct in order to damage the reputation and future of these vehicles, but I'm sure there are no vested interests trying to prevent the success of electric vehicles....
Exactly right, AussieRob. Thank you for your well stated comment.
I cosidered buying a Leaf however, I live in an apatment and have no way of charging it at home. That scenario is applicable to millions of Americans that live in condos/apartments. More and more people are renting now a days.
Jim - You're right ... that is a problem that needs to be solved. My son has the same issue. Initially, EV's may not work for everyone, but in my particular case the current EV shortcomings are not insurmountable.
Of course they're coming up short. You can't expect to sell Product X, which is supposed to be better than Product W...but isn't...Costs more, does less etc. A little common sense goes a long way. If I go shopping for the new, latest, greatest TV and find one that uses less power to operate but only gets the odd numbered channels...oh and costs more...guess what? I'm not going to buy it. We're moving in the wrong direction. Using more electricity doesn't make the planet any greener, if that's your thing. The right direction would be finding a way to eliminate the need for vehicle transportation. Where are all the geeks, nerds, trekkies? Get on the ball! TELEPORTATION!