Electric Car Economics

[lestersails]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

My point is that I believe that government subsidies shouldn’t exist. It has a tendency to interfere with the normal free enterprise system, which I believe results most often in what the general public wants.

This can be a valid view if the free enterprise system actually accounts for the full costs. Ending subsidies for, say oil exploration and drilling is only half the story. The cost of ICE fuel does not account for the downstream costs of dumping CO2 into the atmosphere. I would like to see a life cycle analysis of the costs of both ICE and EV - but let's not kid ourselves, the ICE gets massive subsidies in the so-called free enterprise system, even if you end oil exploration and drilling subsidies entirely.
This is analogous to a problem in manufacturing. One of the reasons US jobs are fleeing is that developing country governments allow dumping of toxic wastes into the rivers and oceans. A US manufacturer has to pay big money to have that waste properly processed. Bye bye jobs (partly) because of an indirect subsidy.
It is interesting how enthusiastic free enterprisers are when they are getting something free that benefits them and harms others or reap profits today and pushes costs off into the future. That is not free enterprise, that is a market distortion.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by RaymondR

More CO2 in the atmosphere and longer growing seasons leads to more plant life.

Please, please put that one out to pasture. The increased CO2 is not a net benefit, it's a problem. What little benefit might arise to plants is more than offset by the magnitude and speed of change, the disruption to natural systems like pollinators, pests, changes to weather patterns, shifting precipitation, and other issues. It's already significant. I won't bore you with links; I think you know this already.

We need to keep working on the EV aspect and get the cost down a good bit yet before they become a viable replacement for IC engined mass transport.

On this we agree. It still makes sense to subsidize and invest in EV technology, to make it happen faster, and to gain the benefits of scale in core technologies like batteries.

btw the West's reticence to get more serious about getting off of fossil fuels is giving other countries a massive opportunity. China is owning the market for electric buses.

[topo]

[QUOTE=a64pilot;2924051]Most autos I believe can charge from a regular 110V plug, however it’s limited to either 15 or 20 amps, so your dribbling in the charge.
You pretty much have to install a 220V actual charger, if you know how and have the available capacity in your box etc. I believe it can be done for only $300 or $400. I have also heard of it costing $3,000 to have professionally installed by a liscensed electrician, and I assume that price likely included an additional panel box etc.

I see no reason why you couldn’t plug it into a drier plug, I wired my Fathers Motorhome that he used for Hemodialysis that way, that would make it portable and of course it’s not installed so you may get around codes that way.

However having to use a 50 amp 220V power source for up to ten hours ought to give you an idea of just how much power we are talking about, it’s not trivial.

Average US house uses 850 KWH per month, it takes I believe 50 KWH to charge a Tesla Model 3 battery. Depending on how often you have to charge it, it’s going to require significantly more production of power to charge these things if they get much of a market share.

You are right : taking into account a daily commuting of 50 miles ,and a consumption (EV) of 0,2 kwh per mile , it will take 10 kwh every day the round trip . you can take this energy from a simple plug at home ( 110v,10 amp, 10 hours ) or split the charge and get some kwh when you are working. But we are talking about 200 kwh per month ( only one car) .

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by topo

However having to use a 50 amp 220V power source for up to ten hours ought to give you an idea of just how much power we are talking about, it’s not trivial.

Average US house uses 850 KWH per month, it takes I believe 50 KWH to charge a Tesla Model 3 battery. Depending on how often you have to charge it, it’s going to require significantly more production of power to charge these things if they get much of a market share.

Yes, but charging overnight uses the grid when it is most capable of supplying that power.

[a64pilot]

A few issues, first the EV’s replace the urban cars usually, and they are driven far less on average than cars in the country, mileage wise, so your not replacing the cars that would be the most effective, if your the person that drives 10 or 15 miles a day, you don’t need an electric car, they guy who drives 100 miles or more does.

The electrical power generation isn’t there to support widespread use of EV’s and won’t be for quite awhile. The problem with renewables generating power is that they are unreliable, we have Winter, cloudy overcast days, and days with no wind, followed by Summer and bright sunny days and days that have plenty of wind. So we need systems to carry over this massive differences in power generation, whether it be fast start up power plants or other means, batteries aren’t it, and may never be, reason is scale, the power storage requirement is massive and batteries due to cost and lifespan work much better for small applications, our boats for example.

I assume that maybe energy storage will come in the way of potential energy, lifting massive weights in the air, pumping water up hill. Or huge flywheels spinning in a vacuum etc. not chemical as in batteries.

However I firmly believe that at least in the interim the answer is becoming efficient, you could trade in your SUV / Pickup tomorrow for a Prius or other hybrid and reduce your fuel consumption to 1/4 of what it was, overnight, in one fell swoop.

However that is not want people want, that is evidenced by Politicians long ago exempting SUV’s and Pickup trucks from fuel economy standards and the old Gas Guzzler tax.
It’s simple people don’t want to conserve and social pressures don’t require them to, in fact it’s just the opposite, social pressures push people into buying luxury SUV’s and to consume.

So heavy government subsidies of EV’s isn’t going to do squat, nothing will happen until or unless social pressures make it desirable to be efficient, and they don’t, and people on average are heavily influenced by social pressures. Proof is in what they consume, they never buy the best, they always buy what they want to be seen possessing, always.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

... I firmly believe that at least in the interim the answer is becoming efficient, you could trade in your SUV / Pickup tomorrow for a Prius or other hybrid and reduce your fuel consumption to 1/4 of what it was, overnight, in one fell swoop.

However that is not want people want, that is evidenced by Politicians long ago exempting SUV’s and Pickup trucks from fuel economy standards and the old Gas Guzzler tax.

It’s simple people don’t want to conserve and social pressures don’t require them to, in fact it’s just the opposite, social pressures push people into buying luxury SUV’s and to consume.

So heavy government subsidies of EV’s isn’t going to do squat, nothing will happen until or unless social pressures make it desirable to be efficient, and they don’t, and people on average are heavily influenced by social pressures. Proof is in what they consume, they never buy the best, they always buy what they want to be seen possessing, always.

Hmmm. You observe how a de facto subsidy on trucks and SUVs (the CAFE delay, and cheap gas) has influenced consumer behaviour, then claim that EV subsidies won't have influence.

Of course people don't want to conserve, and when everything from the government to cheap gas to advertising seems to support the idea that you're a chump if you do... guess what happens.

[a64pilot]

You have it backwards, the social desire to drive big, powerful vehicles predated the subsidies and relaxing of the laws for special vehicles.
People desired it first, and government gave them what they wanted.
Your convinced that society is best served with government controls, I’m not.
Our disagreements are really that simple

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

You have it backwards, the social desire to drive big, powerful vehicles predated the subsidies and relaxing of the laws for special vehicles.

I won't deny the appeal of trucks and SUVs in North America, but it was the manufacturers who leaned heavily on government to get exemptions for those categories, which is a market distortion. Those are their big profitmakers after all; Ford is getting out of cars altogether except for the Mustang, and the other American brands have cut their car lines back as well.


Anyway, yes your position has been clearly stated and I understand and respect that.

[a64pilot]

The first relaxing of the regs that I know of was back in the I think the early 70’s when laws were passed that Commercial vehicles had much more lax pollution standards and safety standards, Commercial vehicles were those bigger than the 1/2 Ton truck of the day. So the manufacturers did take advantage of that loop hole, and that was how the “heavy half” Ton truck was created, that was the beginning of the F-150 and the Chevy 1500, before then they were 100’s. People didn’t want a 3/4 ton truck though, but they wanted to not have to pass emissions and safety standards.
Emissions controls killed vehicles so bad that in I believe 1978 the quickest and fastest American vehicle was the Dodge Little Red Express truck. Sad day when the little truck beat out the Corvette, but it had much easier emissions standard to pass, due to it being a “Commercial” vehicle.

However it seems that since then that the laws have been a joke, with SUV’s for example exempt from gas guzzler tax and CAFE standards.

Of course the manufacturers will play games to get around the laws, it’s the laws that don’t work. Remember 5 mph bumpers? Wonder what they don’t exist and haven’t for decades?
Every major manufacturer has been caught with defeat devices for emissions controls, and they will continue to cheat, however they do so in order to give the public what they want.

Until or unless it becomes socially the thing to do, people will not drive an efficient vehicle, the only reason a Tesla sells is for the same reason a Rolex watch does.

[Buzzman]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

Your convinced that society is best served with government controls, I’m not.
Our disagreements are really that simple

And therin lies humanities dilemma:

"We wanna do what WE wanna do, and not be told what to do (or not do) by some stinking government...!!"


Actually, a64, it's YOU that has got it TOTALLY wrong.

What you describe is anarchy - not democracy. What you are describing is totalitarianism - not democracy.

You can't have "freedom" (i.e. democracy) without also accepting the 'controls' that the ELECTED officials implement, based on whatever platform they stood on.

So, to put it bluntly (and I do mena bluntly, not with any finesse or shaeds of grey) the "people" voted for th elected officials who are making the choices they are making FOR THE BETTERMENT of society.

They NOT doing it for the DETRIMENT of society.

Although sometimes, a rule that impinges on one sector of society can make it feel like that.

The REAL elephant in the room is that we humans are (generalising) way too selfish and will happily stuff the entire planetary ecosystem - provided we make a quid from it, or prevent someone else from making a quid from it.

This is the nature of the "tragedy of the commons" thesis, which essentially says that, given 'total freedom' to 'do what they like' humans will act selfishly, and often at the detriment of their long term survival.

THAT is why we need "gernement regulation" of the capitalist economy.

It cannot work to our benefit without it.

QED

[ranger58sb]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I won't deny the appeal of trucks and SUVs in North America, but it was the manufacturers who leaned heavily on government to get exemptions for those categories, which is a market distortion. Those are their big profitmakers after all;

Hmmm....

That'd be backwards to the way I got here from there. No "social" incentive at all. I want a big SUV so I can carry a boatload of stuff, or sometimes pax. Government fuel exemptions simply makes it a (very little) bit less painful.

Now that I'm not doing daily commuting for work, an electric version of some sort would be useful... but the cost of changing from a decent 2008 big-a$$ SUV (with ~85K miles) to a new 2019 EV version wouldn't make any economic sense for us. Trading for a new gas model would be equally painful. And the only benefit I can think of that I'd like to gain would be the better adaptive cruise controls that exists now.

-Chris

[a64pilot]

If you are really interested in an EV, after they get a year or two old and accumulate 30,000 miles or so, they are worth a fraction of the new price, often they have depreciated to 1/3 or less of new price.
My assumption is that surely they bottom out about then, or they would be truly worthless when they are 5 or 6 years old.

The government subsidies must be behind these things losing so much value so fast, that or they are junk, and I doubt they are junk, we would have heard about that.

The Tesla is of course the outlier in depreciation, I believe that is the Rolex watch phenomenon if you will, that is it’s highly fashionable and people will pay way more than an items worth so that they can possess the name.
Call it Rolex watch or any number of Women’s hand bag names, which ever you prefer.

Average age for a car in the US is 11.8 years old, so a two or three year old car for 1/3 the price of new ought to be a heck of a deal, and give you a car that is good for a decade or more

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by a64pilot

The Tesla is of course the outlier in depreciation, I believe that is the Rolex watch phenomenon if you will, that is it’s highly fashionable and people will pay way more than an items worth so that they can possess the name.
Call it Rolex watch or any number of Women’s hand bag names, which ever you prefer.

I think there's a bit more to it than just name; I've heard that they are well-built, reliable and dependable (within their range limitations), and great to drive.


True story: in the 90s, the president of the small company I worked for could drive just about anything he wanted. He had a big Mercedes for while, then he had a big Jag (...hated it for the nonstop trips to the shop), bought a Lexus... and adored it. Loved the way it drove and handled, overall quality of fit and finish, reliability. Bought a second for his wife, and did an ad for the dealer.



The point - sometimes there are genuine attributes behind an iconic brand.

[markpierce]

How big is the impact on electric-vehicle range when the heater or air conditioner is used?

[markpierce]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

I won't deny the appeal of trucks and SUVs in North America, but it was the manufacturers who leaned heavily on government to get exemptions for those categories, which is a market distortion. Those are their big profitmakers after all; Ford is getting out of cars altogether except for the Mustang, and the other American brands have cut their car lines back as well.


Anyway, yes your position has been clearly stated and I understand and respect that.

You mean like market distortions such as government-decreed mileage requirements, government subsidies for purchasing an electric vehicle, free use of express lanes, or exemption from taxes for road repair and construction?