EV's are dead - says Morgan Stanely

[twscrap]

BMW got me to buy one, so it's hard to disagree.

 

[EVA]

Oh BMW is selling a lot of them right now because the marketed the heck out of them. Every time I turned around there was some kind of promotion for it. Wait to see how well it does in 6 months.

 

[jmueller065]

Oh yeah, about that Hyundai Fuel Cell vehicle (interesting read):
http://www.longtailpipe.com/2014/06/hyundai-openly-manipulating-california.html

 

[unplugged]

Oh yeah, about that Hyundai Fuel Cell vehicle (interesting read):
http://www.longtailpipe.com/2014/06/hyundai-openly-manipulating-california.html

I don't think anyone ever thought that the Hyundai Fuel Cell was going to be anything other than a compliance car. Not only is it only offered in California, but it is lease only. (A real giveaway.) The article makes it sound like this is some sort of revelation.

Any fuel cell car will be a compliance vehicle for the foreseeable future. There is no hydrogen infrastructure and the cost of each vehicle exceeds $100K. No one can sell the beasts because of the cost. The SOLE reason for any automaker to have a fuel cell car is to rake in CARB credits.

 

[jmueller065]

I don't think anyone ever thought that the Hyundai Fuel Cell was going to be anything other than a compliance car. Not only is it only offered in California, but it is lease only. (A real giveaway.) The article makes it sound like this is some sort of revelation.

Any fuel cell car will be a compliance vehicle for the foreseeable future. There is no hydrogen infrastructure and the cost of each vehicle exceeds $100K. No one can sell the beasts because of the cost. The SOLE reason for any automaker to have a fuel cell car is to rake in CARB credits.

Sure, but what I really found interesting is how much the CARB ZEV credits are slanted for HFC's vs BEVs. Even though car makers get more credits for HFC's they make and sell BEVs--that shows you how much more of an advantage BEVs have (e.g. are much easer to produce).

 

[unplugged]

Sure, but what I really found interesting is how much the CARB ZEV credits are slanted for HFC's vs BEVs. Even though car makers get more credits for HFC's they make and sell BEVs--that shows you how much more of an advantage BEVs have (e.g. are much easer to produce).

The Board tries to justify the additional credits to fuel cells on the basis of fast fueling and high development and production costs. But I feel EV and HFC credits should be equalized in order to provide an incentive for manufacturers to continue research on fast charge and adding charging station installs. Hyundai is evidently saying that by placing all its emphasis on HFC, it can meet the zero emissions requirements of the CARB regs. Maybe for the next few years, but hopefully, the CARB mandates will eventually shine a light on how ridiculous fuel cells are and how they can't be made in sufficient quantity to satisfy future CARB mandates..

 

[pjam3]

The real question is how many people would buy any of these cheaper Electrics if there were no $10K credits and rebates and so on? How many people would buy any of these cars if they were about making the manufacturers money? I doubt anybody would buy the FFE if they sold it for $45K or more. How many people would still buy the Tesla if it were $200K? The biggest issue with EVs is they aren't making most of these companies money.

It's a business. Great for consumers if we can get one for $299 a month or $25K, but pointless to big companies who want to make money on them. Nobody would buy a FFE with a limited range for close to $50K with no rebates or tax credits. Until the technology becomes better and cheaper, it's a niche that most consumers won't be a part of and most businesses will see as a losing proposition. Even Tesla makes money because they sell credits to other manufacturers.

 

[unplugged]

Until the technology becomes better and cheaper, it's a niche that most consumers won't be a part of and most businesses will see as a losing proposition.

I don't think anyone would argue that if not for CARB mandates, EVs would be a much smaller niche than they already are. The very reason CARB has mandated ZEVs is to move the needle on alternative fuel technology. By essentially requiring that automakers subsidize the sale of EVs in order to sell in California (and seven other CARB compliant states), CARB will move EVs from a niche vehicle to a major player comprising more than 15% of vehicles sold in the state by 2025. http://opr.ca.gov/docs/Governor's_Office_ZEV_Action_Plan_(02-13).pdf This 15% is not a goal or a some meaningful target that automakers are required to meet. If you want to sell cars in California, you have to SELL 15% of your production as ZEVs. http://www.plugincars.com/automakers-lose-latest-game-chicken-carb%E2%80%99s-zero-emission-rules-128644.html

Of course, EV technology will become better and cheaper because EVs will comprise 15% of vehicles sales. Mass production has a way of lowering the cost of "niche" vehicles. In the end, your claim that most consumers won't be a part of these niche vehicles is not a long-term proposition. Seeing as how the eight CARB states comprise 25% of all vehicles sold in the U.S., I would argue that not only will the technology improve in the next five years, but that the cost of EVs will continue to stay the same or less than comparable ICE vehicles.

 

[Lithium]

What no one seems to mention is that the gas to make hydrogen is owned by the oil/gas companies. They have billions invested in technology and infrastructure. Oil/Gas are not going to sit idle, watching the electric utilities reap the rewards of their infrastructure investment in solar and wind. Oil/Gas is lobbying hard for Hydrogen as it will be made and delivered through their infrastructure (pipelines/tankers/trucks) and secure their own future. The car companies like Hyundai and Honda are playing in the space to hedge their bets. I'm sure speed of refueling and range are genuine issues. Time and technology will over come these issues but politics and lobbying for self interest is going to sway that game significantly.
We've seen votes bought by political contributions. Politicians want to stay in power and take the money to get re-elected. The money comes from those with the biggest to loose or gain. This is a battle of titans of industry for our dollars. The only way we have to make a mark is with our votes and taking the time to look into where the politicians motivations lay, and whether it matches our interests or not.
H

 

[twscrap]

The real question is how many people would buy any of these cheaper Electrics if there were no $10K credits and rebates and so on? How many people would buy any of these cars if they were about making the manufacturers money? I doubt anybody would buy the FFE if they sold it for $45K or more. How many people would still buy the Tesla if it were $200K? The biggest issue with EVs is they aren't making most of these companies money.

It's a business. Great for consumers if we can get one for $299 a month or $25K, but pointless to big companies who want to make money on them. Nobody would buy a FFE with a limited range for close to $50K with no rebates or tax credits. Until the technology becomes better and cheaper, it's a niche that most consumers won't be a part of and most businesses will see as a losing proposition. Even Tesla makes money because they sell credits to other manufacturers.

That's kind of the point of the credits - get manufacturers off their asses to where they are building them and people are buying them. That way word gets out about the benefits, supply chains are created and ultimately manufacturing costs are driven down to the point where EVs are affordable for the general population. When flat screen TVs debuted at CES prices were above $20k. Those first, very expensive models have to be developed and early adopters have to purchase to begin getting the world interested in the product. The credits and rebates help foster that change - they will go away, but when they do, EVs will be much cheaper by that point.

 

[pjam3]

The real question is how many people would buy any of these cheaper Electrics if there were no $10K credits and rebates and so on? How many people would buy any of these cars if they were about making the manufacturers money? I doubt anybody would buy the FFE if they sold it for $45K or more. How many people would still buy the Tesla if it were $200K? The biggest issue with EVs is they aren't making most of these companies money.

It's a business. Great for consumers if we can get one for $299 a month or $25K, but pointless to big companies who want to make money on them. Nobody would buy a FFE with a limited range for close to $50K with no rebates or tax credits. Until the technology becomes better and cheaper, it's a niche that most consumers won't be a part of and most businesses will see as a losing proposition. Even Tesla makes money because they sell credits to other manufacturers.

That's kind of the point of the credits - get manufacturers off their asses to where they are building them and people are buying them. That way word gets out about the benefits, supply chains are created and ultimately manufacturing costs are driven down to the point where EVs are affordable for the general population. When flat screen TVs debuted at CES prices were above $20k. Those first, very expensive models have to be developed and early adopters have to purchase to begin getting the world interested in the product. The credits and rebates help foster that change - they will go away, but when they do, EVs will be much cheaper by that point.

The difference is nobody was really selling a $20K TV for $1000. Companies weren't taking losses, they just waited till the cost went down and people became interested. But you do realize companies like Sony are pretty much bankrupt because they lose money on TVs.

 

[jeffand]

EV sales are growing at about 20% a year. The problem is the price of the battery. This is the most costly part in a EV. It's also the most unproven over time as to how well it will hold up. Once these two requirements are met you will see more people move to EV as vehicle of choice. Improving the driving range to 150 to 200 miles on a single charge would help reduce the driver range issues. Currently EV batteries are made at relatively low volume. At these current levels thier is no compelling reason to invest in developing high volume production. Once demand hits a level that battery manufactures can see the need for high volume production they will make it happen. Now as to how much they can reduce the cost of production yet to be seen.

 

[twscrap]

The difference is nobody was really selling a $20K TV for $1000. Companies weren't taking losses, they just waited till the cost went down and people became interested. But you do realize companies like Sony are pretty much bankrupt because they lose money on TVs.

With that argument, the original MSRP of the FFE should have been $820k. Sorry, they don't cost that much to build. And Sony was going down the toilet before TV prices got so low. It was due to lack of innovative products and inferiority of the ones they were putting out. They've been losing market share in every one of their product lines since 2008.

EV sales are growing at about 20% a year. The problem is the price of the battery. This is the most costly part in a EV. It's also the most unproven over time as to how well it will hold up. Once these two requirements are met you will see more people move to EV as vehicle of choice. Improving the driving range to 150 to 200 miles on a single charge would help reduce the driver range issues. Currently EV batteries are made at relatively low volume. At these current levels thier is no compelling reason to invest in developing high volume production. Once demand hits a level that battery manufactures can see the need for high volume production they will make it happen. Now as to how much they can reduce the cost of production yet to be seen.

Personally I see battery prices and degradation fears as a non-issue. BMW has been quoted as saying the i3 pack is $12k in today's dollars. Over an estimated 8 year battery life span someone with a car that gets 20 mpg and drives 15k miles per year will save just under $19k in gas and oil change costs. This doesn't even include brake replacements that won't be necessary.

 

[pjam3]

The difference is nobody was really selling a $20K TV for $1000. Companies weren't taking losses, they just waited till the cost went down and people became interested. But you do realize companies like Sony are pretty much bankrupt because they lose money on TVs.

With that argument, the original MSRP of the FFE should have been $820k. Sorry, they don't cost that much to build. And Sony was going down the toilet before TV prices got so low. It was due to lack of innovative products and inferiority of the ones they were putting out. They've been losing market share in every one of their product lines since 2008.

EV sales are growing at about 20% a year. The problem is the price of the battery. This is the most costly part in a EV. It's also the most unproven over time as to how well it will hold up. Once these two requirements are met you will see more people move to EV as vehicle of choice. Improving the driving range to 150 to 200 miles on a single charge would help reduce the driver range issues. Currently EV batteries are made at relatively low volume. At these current levels thier is no compelling reason to invest in developing high volume production. Once demand hits a level that battery manufactures can see the need for high volume production they will make it happen. Now as to how much they can reduce the cost of production yet to be seen.

Personally I see battery prices and degradation fears as a non-issue. BMW has been quoted as saying the i3 pack is $12k in today's dollars. Over an estimated 8 year battery life span someone with a car that gets 20 mpg and drives 15k miles per year will save just under $19k in gas and oil change costs. This doesn't even include brake replacements that won't be necessary.

This is a plain BS argument. Nobody is buying an FFE or Leaf to replace an SUV. And when you start talking about under 20 MPG that's what you're getting.

Why is it people always use SUV and Pick up truck and crappy cars that get terrible gas as a comparison? I could buy a simple and cheap Prius Hybrid and get around 48MPG. Suddenly the FFE doesn't seem all that impressive especially considering gas prices haven't gone over $5 per gallon as people thought.

Yeah it's easy to make an electric look great if you compare an FFE to a Ford Expedition. But if you compare the FFE to a Toyota Prius Hybrid, that entire cheaper gas argument goes into the trash.

 

[jmueller065]

Yeah it's easy to make an electric look great if you compare an FFE to a Ford Expedition. But if you compare the FFE to a Toyota Prius Hybrid, that entire cheaper gas argument goes into the trash.

I always compare the FFE with the ICE Focus since that is its closest match. Guess what: Even when comparing to the 40mpg ICE Focus the FFE still comes out ahead.

 

[twscrap]

This is a plain BS argument. Nobody is buying an FFE or Leaf to replace an SUV. And when you start talking about under 20 MPG that's what you're getting.

Why is it people always use SUV and Pick up truck and crappy cars that get terrible gas as a comparison? I could buy a simple and cheap Prius Hybrid and get around 48MPG. Suddenly the FFE doesn't seem all that impressive especially considering gas prices haven't gone over $5 per gallon as people thought.

Yeah it's easy to make an electric look great if you compare an FFE to a Ford Expedition. But if you compare the FFE to a Toyota Prius Hybrid, that entire cheaper gas argument goes into the trash.

My EV replaced an Audi A4 that got 20 MPG. Not a 'crappy' car.

 

[hybridbear]

Yeah it's easy to make an electric look great if you compare an FFE to a Ford Expedition. But if you compare the FFE to a Toyota Prius Hybrid, that entire cheaper gas argument goes into the trash.

We're looking at getting a Focus Electric to replace our Prius. The Focus Electric will cost about half of what the Prius costs for fuel. Our assumptions are:

• 
  Gas costs $3.25/gal (based on our Fuelly history of price paid after gas discounts)
  Electricity costs $0.11/kWh (average of summer rates & winter rates, includes fixed cost monthly service fees and taxes)
  The Prius will get 48 MPG year-round average (this estimate again favors the Prius as we are currently at 44.7 MPG and warm weather MPG has been lower than expected and probably won't be high enough to get us to 48 MPG year-round)
  The Focus Electric will average 320 Wh/mi year-round including charging losses (EPA estimate)

Based on those assumptions the Prius costs $67.71 per month for gas and the Focus Electric costs $34.38 per month for electricity.

If I lower the Prius MPG to 47, then the Prius cost increases to $69.15 per month. If gas prices increase to $3.35/gal, then it's cost increases to $71.28 per month.

Our electric rates should not increase much in the next few years. Utilities are regulated by the state in MN and our electric company, Xcel Energy, had been charging customers a higher rate for most of 2013 based on a proposed price increase that they had submitted to the utilities commission. The commission struck down their proposal and reduced the rate increase. Xcel thus had to refund customers the amount that they had been "overcharged". Electricity rates shouldn't increase again any time soon.

Edit: in order to get to 47 MPG year round we would need to average 53 MPG for the summer in the Prius based on our logged miles so far. To get to 48 MPG year round we would need to average 57.5 MPG for the summer. I think that 47 MPG year round is an accurate number for the Prius.

 

[WetEV]

But if you compare the FFE to a Toyota Prius Hybrid, that entire cheaper gas argument goes into the trash.

Look at it over the life of the car, assumed to be 10 years and 150,000 miles.

Prius will use 3000 gallons of gasoline @ 50 MPG, which is probably better than realistic. At @$4 per gallon, that is $12000

FFE or similar will use 37500 kWh @ 250 Wh/mile, about what I'm averaging over the past two years, and probably better than realistic. At $0.11 per kWh, that is $4125

Prius Oil changes every 10k miles, about 14, cost say $35, $490

Prius plugs, coolant changes, etc. Not priced, but significant.

Even if gasoline prices don't spike, the running cost of the FFE seems fairly likely to be $8000 less than the Prius, which is already a high MPG, low maintenance cost car.

Prius MSRP is $24,000
FFE MSRP is $36,000, less $7500 tax credit and less state tax exemption.

So without any tax credits at all, paying MSRP, and with fairly stable gasoline prices, it might cost $4000 more to drive the FFE, or $0.04 more per mile.

The FFE is nicer than the Prius to drive. Quiet. Responsive. Always fueled up in the morning.

There are always unknowns. Price of gasoline next month, next year, how well both cars last, battery lifetime and replacement cost if needed, and so on. While I can average 50 mpg in our Prius, my wife's average is closer to 40 mpg. Different trips, different driving styles. Repairs and accidents. Lots of unknowns.

So it really can't come down to just the numbers.

 

[WattsUp]

This is a plain BS argument. Nobody is buying an FFE or Leaf to replace an SUV.

There are a lot of people (who apparently have a lot of cash to burn) using SUVs as commuter cars, not so much because of their capacity (they're often driving them alone), but because it serves as some kind of "status symbol" for them. I mean, who needs a "luxury SUV"? -- for hauling logs, no; it's for saying "Hey, look at meeee on my giant mobile throne of excess". These people rarely carry many passengers or cargo, even though they could. Yes, they bought the SUV for its size... but not necessarily to use that size in any literally meaningful way.

So, I agree that not all, but I do think that many of these types of people certainly could replace their SUV with an EV. To each his own, but we'd hope that (someday) these same people would come to see driving an EV also as a kind of status symbol. One that says, "Hey, look at meeee not being wasteful, and keeping more money for my family than yoooo".

 

[WattsUp]

But if you compare the FFE to a Toyota Prius Hybrid, that entire cheaper gas argument goes into the trash.

The simple number I always tell people is that the average ICE owner could easily spend about $2000 per year on gas and maintenance. So, buying an ICE car and keeping it for 10 years? Please add another $20,000 to the total cost of your fine automobile. Nobody can argue with this... you will spend tens of thousands dollars on gasoline (possibly equaling or exceeding the full price of the car itself) if you keep the car for any significant length of time.

The other simple number (being as I'm from CA) is that, at least currently, between the federal ($7,500) and state ($2,500) incentives, you can effectively add another $10,000 to the total cost an ICE car (compared to buying an EV, in which case you'd qualify for $10,000 off the purchase price). With an EV, right off the bat, there's already a "raw" savings of $30,000 versus an ICE. A lot of people can grok this plain fact... and they start rubbing their chins.

Sure, electricity costs money too... but, on average, it costs about 1/4 what gasoline costs to drive the same distance (not assuming perks like free charging at work, or through your municipality). Even bearing the full cost for electricity, the average EV owner might spend, let's say, $600 per year on gas and maintenance. That's a whopping $6,000 over ten years. So, the actual ICE and EV difference? About $24,000 ($30,000 - $6,000) -- in favor of the EV.

Over ten years, one could consider any decision to buy the average ICE car as carrying a $24,000 "penalty" over a decision to buy an EV (and that's not even assuming that oil prices will rise faster than electricity prices, which they almost certainly will). Heck... even without factoring in any incentives, the penalty is still $14,000.

As EV ranges increase, I really think more and more people will begin to see this penalty as a real detriment to driving an ICE car. It will simply be smarter to drive an EV, based on the economics alone. Parallel to this, I think more and more people will also realize that EVs make for much nicer, more pleasurable, and more reliable cars.

At some point, will we all look back and laugh... remembering when cars were powered by gasoline, polluting, noisy, prone to leaking and breaking down, and requiring huge amounts of energy to run, most of which was wasted. It will be the same as how we now look back on the steam trains of yester-year. Sure, "old-fashioned" ICE cars will be romanticized and their passing lamented... but we'll wonder how people got along with them, and their massively wasteful and polluting support system, for so long.