O/T: Talking Cars Tuesday: How long till electrics?
After 10 years or so MgoCar is starting to rust out; so I'm in the market for a new one probably next fall after I retire some debt. I'm hoping for a Taurus, because I'm old, and like me my car's trunks have gotten progressively larger over the years. With my cars at least, I like that fact.
But it got me thinking. I'm going to buy used (I always do, just my philosophy. YMMV) so I always get cars a bit behind the tech curve. But if I keep this car as long as the last one what will the automotive market look like in 2029?
Tesla, though I'm still skeptical of their build quality and their building cars in tents, appears to be getting better. And if they can get their manufacturing issues straightened out for real they do make very nice vehicles.
GM Has the Bolt, which really impresses me. Good range, decent price. If I could get it with AWD I'd do it.
Jaguar e-pace is impressive as well.
Automation is coming, but while I think it will be far more prevalent I don't think it will completely dominate the market by then (I could be wrong, I admit). By that I mean, I will still be able to legally drive if I want.
So, when I go to buy my next MgoCar when my son and daughter are in college, and I will be sad and alone at home looking for automotive fun to distract me, will it be electric? Will the entire field be electric? Will my dream car be an e-powered hellcat? Are there enough rare earth metals for all those batteries?
Good thing, too, because legislation is a really dumb way to get this done. Forcing the market to do something it doesn't want to do is insanely inefficient. If the beverage industry were regulated like the car industry, Diet Coke would lose a bunch of money for the Coca-Cola company, but they'd be held responsible for all the customers who don't want Diet Coke.
March 12th, 2019 at 10:08 PM ^
One might argue that the fact that the market does not factor in externalities is the real inefficiency.
Legilslation/regulation is far from perfect, but the market alone doesn’t work either.
Full disclosure - I am an electric car fan boy. With that said, I got a Tesla Model 3 nearly a year ago and IMO it's just so much better (in several ways) than the cars I had previously. First, the performance is great. So much more fun to drive and smooth than my BMW before.
Second, my range is 310 miles (soon to be 325 miles). I have not traveled cross country yet but it's about 450 miles to Atlanta one way and I have done that several times now. Two stops along the way, each about 15-20 minutes each. No problem.
For everyday driving, it's much better. I simply charge at home and never have to worry about when I am getting gas or going out of my way to stop for gas. Every morning I wake up to 280 miles of range.
Third, last night I got a software update to add new features to my car, including added range (I believe due to battery management). I doubt that I would ever go back to gas barring some drastic change in my ownership experience. It truly feels like an evolutionary step to me.
pictures or it didn't happen (or doesn't exist....)
oldest brother has one and he likes it very much however, he lives in a warm weather climate.
Pictures of what - the car, the range or something else?
the car, of course. and nice pic, thank you for sharing. my brother's car i think is a deluxe version (don't know model names/#'s). he says each wheel has its own motor, so it is certainly AWD, and that its a rocket ship. saw a video of people in the passenger seat of one getting startled as the driver would step on it.
i'm sure its fun, but range, particularly in the cold, will be an extremely limiting factor for my interest level - and they'll have to make trucks since that what we use on the farm.
Mine is RWD only but it still flies and being in NC, all wheel drive is not needed.
Cold is definitely a challenge and does limit the range. OTOH, it seems that electric is a great solution for trucks because of the torque and also the possibility of having a tool charging/power station from the battery. It will be interesting to see what Rivian and Tesla can do with the pickup trucks. I think this holds great promise but we shall see.
As long as you don't need the full range everyday (normal commute) and have access to charge everyday I don't think the cold will be as big a factor as many think.
I have a Model 3 Mid-range that I've been driving all winter in KS. We've had a mixed winter with a few extremely cold days and some in the 50s. Last Monday was a low of 1 and high of 14 and I specifically wanted to see how range was impacted so paid close attention. I charge to 80% and preheat the cabin while plugged in. I drove my normal long commute of 65 miles RT of mixed highway and city, parked all day at work until about 6:30. I ended up about 12% lower than on the warmer days. Not insignificant but still more than enough charge.
About 5% of the loss just from the car sitting at work so it could be problem if someone say charged every other day or something as the slow drain would increase more. It's also less efficient before it warms up as regenerative braking is limited, so I'd expect less loss on longer trips.
Because we are so used to gasoline cars and fuel stations everywhere we tend to forget that gas cars also lose significant range - 12-20% for short trips https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/coldweather.shtml.
If superchargers become faster and more densly populated and range continue to go up we'll probably forget about it on EVs as well.
As for the farm...well maybe once Rivian comes out with their pickup? It looks pretty promising.
good input. see mgoproud's down below, particularly with his comment that batteries are merely interim technology. batteries have gotten better, but still not that much given the number of years and the amount of resources they've thrown at them. i assume at some point, given enough time, they could handle the cold and pick up thing, but it'll be a while. i'm not saying there is global warming, i'm not saying there isn't global warming, i'm just saying 4 of the last 5 winters have been old-style cold with many sub-zero days, barn pump frozen, big snow, and this winter included. an electric would've died before it got out to the road, especially in an 8,000 lb rig loaded with another ton or more of feed, tools, cargo, a trailer, livestock, passengers, etc.
March 13th, 2019 at 11:48 AM ^
"an electric would've died before it got out to the road, especially in an 8,000 lb rig loaded with another ton or more of feed, tools, cargo, a trailer, livestock, passengers, etc. "
For any essential high torque application like that (I used to work with an ambulance agency, so for me their rigs would count here too) I think you'd always want at least a diesel generator on board with enough oomph to supply power to any electric motors.
Or just use diesel straight away.
March 13th, 2019 at 12:42 PM ^
There is so much wrong with Mgoproud’s comments on the techy stuff that I know quite well to question anything he’s got to say.
On global warming, it’s called “global” warming for a reason. Regardless of any specific areas seasonal temperatures, there is a clear and obvious increase in global temperature. This is a fact, not an opinion.
All that having been said, I can definitely understand why an electric doesn’t make sense for you, but there are many people for who it does.
That's a great point that I hadn't thought of. I forget when but I spoke to someone up here with a Tesla and he said that the uber low temps we saw the past couple weeks played hell with his range.
wanted to buy a Tesla for my next car, but I’ve heard colder climates have issues with doors freezing.
Fake news. My gas car doors freeze when I wash my car in -20 temps.
My guess from various inputs - by 2030 70% to 80% of new vehicles sold will contain an ICE or some sort.
We have to get rid of farting cows first.
You'll have to pry my internal combustion engine from my cold, dead hands.
Hate to be the old man shaking their fist at the clouds but this technology isn't all that. Wide scale production of batteries is an environmental problem especially with their disposal. And in their production certain materials require very NON environment friendly dirty mining.
Electric generation is not "clean" as most of the power plants that generate said electricity to charge these cars use massive amounts of coal and water with the CO2 emissions not withstanding.
Battery powered cars are an interim technology which will be replaced in maybe 5-10 years with continuous charging power packs. Think of the pads that you sit your phones on, without plugging in, to charge them.
Imagine driving your car on the freeway and it receives a continuous charge traveling over an embedded rail or whatever in the road. To make this happen a large scale investment in infrastructure will be required along with some technology developments which are close. An energy source to provide a charge to unlimited vehicles will need to be found which, most likely, will come from the earth or atmosphere itself (static electricity).
Gasoline engines are still the most economical and efficient powerplant and their green footprint is not that far from electric. If electric vehicles were sold on the same scale as gasoline powered vehicles there would be new and unique environmental concerns.
Oh...and Tesla is a ponzi scam. Any first year accounting student who reads their financials can tell you there are problems with this company. Everyone thinks they are a future Amazon but they're smoke & mirrors propped up on government money.
5-10 years is mega-super-crazy-optimistic for turning all our highways into charging pads. The way the red tape goes, plus construction time, if MDOT decided, right now, to turn all of I-275 into a charging pad, and the technology was all there, it would still not be done for 15-20 years most likely. "Large scale investment" is an understatement.
Every single road in the country, not just freeways, would have to have this technology, otherwise charging stations would still be required.
I have to say this post is a little jarring, what with alternating between get off my lawn and pie in the sky.
Tesla, BTW, you gotta give them credit for being able to raise capital by convincing potential customers to give them interest-free loans. But yeah, in order for me to really believe in the future potential of that company, I want to see their statements break out carbon credit revenue from everything else. I suspect their huge CFO turnover is partially a result of CFO's being able to see that.
I'm not sure every road would need this as the vehicle would have a powerpack good for a certain amount of time but not like these ginormous batteries currently used.
Maybe 5-10 years is optimistic, who knows. But the technology is close and the conductive rail could also carry other things like wifi etc.
Battery vehicles are an "old technology" that has been dressed up but is definitely not the future.
Good points on the splitting off government subs from the actual revenue generated.
On the MDOT example you made, they could simply trench the middle of each lane with a conductive rail or hell even cable. Be akin to laying fiber which happens pretty damn fast when there is a plan to do it.
I want to see their statements break out carbon credit revenue from everything else.
You mean like this from their 10-K notes?
Revenue from the sale of regulatory credits totaled $418.6 million, $360.3 million and $302.3 million for the years ended December 31, 2018, 2017 and 2016, respectively. We had no deferred revenue related to sales of automotive regulatory credits as of December 31, 2018 and 2017.
So $418 million out of $21B in total revenue - yeah thinking their CFO probably didn't quit because of this.
So it was something else that makes their CFOs constantly quit, then, which is even more ominous. They go through executives like Spinal Tap goes through drummers.
Anyway, comparing revenue from credit sales to the rest of their revenue may seem like apples to apples, but it's not, since there's no cost of goods sold associated with it. And that's only notes - they don't break that out from actual automotive revenue. They bake it right into the automotive revenue, which consists of selling cars as well as revenue from Supercharger stations and other things as well. And they're purposefully vague about actual sales - in general they don't provide actual numbers, only estimates. It all adds up to making it hard to tell how much money they actually make on the core of their business, which is selling cars.
Their cost of revenue is about $17.4 billion, so their gross profit is about $4 billion - which is to say that the sale of credits provides a significant chunk of their gross profit.
March 12th, 2019 at 10:39 PM ^
Speaking of Tesla revenue...in countries where EV subsidies were eliminated EV sales dropped 90+% ...umless American consumers are different Tesla sales will be cratered immensely if EV subsidies are eliminated
Oh...and Tesla is a ponzi scam. Any first year accounting student who reads their financials can tell you there are problems with this company. Everyone thinks they are a future Amazon but they're smoke & mirrors propped up on government money
Care to explain how Tesla is "propped up by government money"? They received a $465M loan from the US Gov (far less than GM, Ford Chrysler by the way) and paid it back with interest ahead of schedule (something Ford has yet to do).
Buyers of their cars, and every other EV makers cars are eligible for a tax credit - but that's not unique to Tesla.
The only other incentives have been state level - mainly from Nevada to attract the Giga factory. Again no different than states all over trying to lure Amazon, GM plants, etc.
Not sure what you mean...Ford did not take a loan during the downturn. Unless you mean a different loan.
March 13th, 2019 at 11:18 AM ^
Ford did not take TARP money but did take government loans.
Ford did not receive any money under AIFP, but that doesn’t mean it didn’t get any federal assistance.
In a Jan. 30, 2009, report on the bailout program, the Congressional Research Service noted that Ford “is counting on $5 billion from the DOE loan program to support a $14 billion plan to reorient its lineup toward more fuel-efficient vehicles.” On June 23, 2009, the Department of Energy announced it would provide $5.9 billion to Ford “to transform factories across Illinois, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, and Ohio to produce 13 more fuel efficient models.
I believe those are not fully paid off yet although perhaps they have been. My point isn't to tar Ford rather to point out that people love to point to Tesla when other auto companies received as much or more help. I'd argue that Tesla, whether they survive or not, has made better use of their government funds in introducing more fuel efficient vehicles than Ford has.
March 12th, 2019 at 10:45 PM ^
Some if your facts are wrong and your defense of Tesla doesn't stack up against the weight of stuff that we see right before us. Tesla is resorting to accounting trickery that smacks of Enron to pump up their EBIT.
You mean LBIT; they have no earnings - not even close.
March 13th, 2019 at 11:11 AM ^
Which facts are wrong? I'm just refuting your incorrect facts. You state they are subsidized and provide no facts to support this. I'm not saying they are or aren't using financial trickery. I am saying that I see it all the time in anti-Tesla forums flat out false assertions with BS "facts". I don't have a problem with legitimate concerns about Tesla (will demand remain, is their lack of transparency hiding something or just them running their business as do many other - e.g. Microsoft no longer breaking out Xbox revenue like they used to, etc.). I do have a problem with flat out false assertions that the shorts constantly peddle.
From US Department of Energy
EVs convert about 59%–62% of the electrical energy from the grid to power at the wheels. Conventional gasoline vehicles only convert about 17%–21% of the energy stored in gasoline to power at the wheels.*
Moden gas plants are about 60% efficient meaning your overall fossil energy to power to wheel conversion is about 36%. Coal is much worse but I don’t think anyone is arguing that coal to electric cars make sense (and coal use in the US is declining rapidly - it accounted for about 50% of generation 10 years ago, about 1/3 now and going down.
Pleasw tell me that you are not a U of M Engineer because that would not make me proud at all.
March 13th, 2019 at 12:56 PM ^
These are good points.
EVs get cleaner as more and more of the grid leaves coal behind. Natural gas, wind and solar are becoming the norm for new build.
People in areas with high wind generation, even if there is a lot of coal generation, are likely greener than the average mix of the grid. Wind in most of the US tends to blow harder at night so in many areas, other than spinning reserves most if not all of the generation is coming from wind during charging.
ICE vehicles get dirtier as old engines are even less efficient. Oil extraction is also getting dirtier as we tap more reserves in the tar sands, offshore, and in shale.
I’ll drive gas/diesel, until someone can make an electric with a 500 mile range between charges, no more than 10 minutes to charge from empty to full, and maintains those standards for 15+ years.
I get the arguments for why we need to go to electric (environment etc) but until an electric can do what a gas/diesel can do, it’s not worth it.
I understand the sentiment and agree that EVs will need to get there, or close for large scale adoption.
I do think people tend to notice what EVs can't do (range, time to fill-up) but don't realize how nice some of the things that it eliminates/changes are.
- I don't miss standing in the cold for 5-10 minutes a week waiting to fill my car up. About 20 seconds to plug in every night and ready to roll in the morning. It may take a bit longer the few times per year I travel over 200 miles but at least then I can go in and have a coffee or just keep the car on with heat. My old bladder can't handle 500 miles non-stop anyway - get it to 20 minutes every 3 hours and I'd say it's a win for EVs
- I don't miss the smell of gas when it occasionally drips on my hand, shoe, etc.
- I don't miss waking up and not having a full tank of gas or being part way to work when the gas light reminds me I forgot to fill up. It's great having a "full tank" every morning with no effort
- I don't miss oil changes, coolant flushes etc. Very little maintenance other than tire rotations and windshield wiper fluid needed for EVs
- I enjoy that I occasionally get to park somewhere like Boulevard Brewing and get free charging while I enjoy a beer. No one ever bought me a free tank of gas :)
EVs certainly aren't perfect and don't fit every lifestyle yet, but they are fantastic for those that have access to charging at home or work, aren't constantly travelling long distance to the point it becomes too much to trade-off the daily time savings (and don't have an ICE in the family for trips also).
March 13th, 2019 at 10:36 AM ^
The amount of time I've wasted in my life at gas stations and car repair shops for routine maintenance is more than enough to convince me that an EV will be part of my vehicle portfolio in the next few years. We'll probably have one EV and one ICE or gas hybrid vehicle in the fleet.
I was seriously considering a Volt for my next vehicle purchase, so I was extremely disappointed to hear about its impending demise. Any rumors on a replacement vehicle that adopts a Volt-like powertrain? I assume if there is one, it will be a crossover vehicle. Or maybe I'll grab a used Volt and run it into the ground.
March 13th, 2019 at 12:17 PM ^
I was sad to see the Volt get nixed as well. The people I know that drive them really like them, and I think they fill a nice slot for those that need (or really want) range without the compromise still needed for EVs. Plug-in Hybrids have their downside in overall complexity of both electric and gas drive systems but I do think they are a nice option.
I'd seriously consider picking up a used Volt myself - my daughter is a few years from driving but could see us getting a used Bolt, Leaf or Volt for her in a few years. Might lean to the Bolt or Leaf as I love the added safety of EVs not having the engine so having increased frontal crumple zones - another underrated aspect of EVs. She won't need range so even old Leaf's with limited range could work well.
I bought a Chevy Bolt last year. I live in Los Angeles and have to commute downtown every day. In order to use the Fast Track lane to get downtown, you either have to pay $20-$25 a day or you have to own an electric car so I bought the Bolt.
It's . . . okay. Very fun to drive because of how quickly it accelerates. And it's very smooth. But the range is not at all what it's advertised to be (250 miles). If you live in an area that's hilly (which I do), you aren't going to get anything even close to 250 miles. Yes, going downhill charges the battery but going uphill takes far more energy than going downhill replaces. Also, anything that goes wrong takes a long time for the dealership to fix.
As an example, I bought the car and after 141 miles, the battery gave out. Yes, 141 miles. Not a typo. It took the dealer several days to figure out what was wrong and another week after that to get a new battery. A few months later, there was a problem with the brakes and again, it took about two weeks for them to figure out what was wrong and get it fixed. Basically, the traditional mechanics at the Chevy dealer have no idea how to operate/repair the electric cars. They have ONE guy who knows how to repair the electric cars and this isn't some tiny dealership in a small town.
Basically, I wouldn't buy an electric right now unless you don't mind paying a lot of money to be what amounts to a Beta tester. It's worth it for me because buying the car to get "free" access to the Fast Track lane ends up saving money because it costs so damn much to use the lanes. Additionally, when I bought it they were still giving out $7,500 federal tax credits, $2,500 state tax credits, $400 electric company credits and a $700 Costco gift card. All total, that cut more than 25% off the price of the car. I don't think they're giving those credits any longer.
I am picking up a new Lincoln today without yielding control to automation. I usually keep cars about 10 or 12 years. At my age this might be my last car. As a retired automotive engineer, driverless cars scare the living shit out of me. Why? Because guys like me designed them. What if one of the key parts was designed by a guy with distracting personal issues? What if he was just having a bad day? What if he just had a brain fart? I'll just stay in the right hand lane. I won't talk on my cell or text while driving. And I'll just take my chances the old fashioned way. If something goes wrong, I'll pull over and call road service. When I fly with my wife, I let her have the window seat and keep the shade down. I pretend I'm on a bus and follow flight track closely, while pretending I'm helping the pilot. All for the same reasons listed above.
March 13th, 2019 at 11:54 AM ^
To me, automation in driving is a different level. I'm open to EV's. self driving cars are a much harder thing to implement, IMHO. What does the integration test for that look like? 'Okay, we tested against all sizes and breeds of dog that might bolt in front of the car. Now we have to test that agains dogs vs. toddlers.' 'What if there is a small horse, or a truck with the sky painted on the side...' 'Oh shit...'