When Will Electric Cars Become Mainstream?

[splin]

When you live in a locale with an abundance of Hydro power, the numbers are quite impressive.  These numbers would be even better if they had our province at 90% Hydro, but it's a US site, and the world stops at the 49th

When you plug your EV in to recharge it, you increase the load on the grid, by say, 3kW. That means another 3kW has to be supplied to the grid. Do you suppose they increase the hydro, nuclear, wind, biomass, PV, coal and gas generators proportionally? Of course not - everything except coal and gas (and possibly biomass) is almost certainly already maxed out. So your EV, pretty much wherever you live in the world, is powered by gas or coal fired electricity.

If it's gas your CO2 emissions are likely to be a bit less than those from an efficient ICE, but if it's coal then they could well be worse.

There will of course be occasions, in some places, where there are renewable sources that are being curtailed because supply exceeds demand, or grid capacity is insufficient, but that will very much be the exception.

And please don't try to claim that because you have solar panels on your house that your EV is powered solely by renewables - unless you are off grid - because your PV electricity would have been used regardless of whether your EV was plugged in or not.

The key words here are 'marginal generation' ie. the generators that are turned on to supply additional demand and it will vary over the course of a day and over the year as well as your location. Of course when your grid supply is 100% low carbon (nuclear or renewable) then your EV also becomes low carbon. But for most places in the world that won't be for another 20 years or more.

This 'average mix of electricity generation sources' nonsense is found everywhere on the web including in many scientific and goverment papers. The Union of Concerned Scientists has knowingly and shamelessly pushed this rubbish for some time (undoubtably for the best of reasons) but the fact that the EPA also promolgate this non-science is disappointing; they know that it is meaningless but publish these worthless 'calculators' anyway. They know it because they provide a tool, AVERT 'A tool that estimates the emissions benefits of energy efficiency and renewable energy policies and programs' which analyses marginal emissions factors.

https://www.epa.gov/statelocalenergy/avoided-emissions-and-generation-tool-avert

I guess the reason that so many use an average mix of electricity generation is because it is easy to get the numbers whereas it is generally very hard or impossible to find the marginal generation numbers.

[jh15]

but my car fuel millage could power 5 mustangs.

Not talking about econoboxes.

100 mpg equivalent what does a mustang get, and is stinky and noisy.

tried to tell wife at red light to get attention of Maserati at red light a couple weeks ago. what do you do? can't rev engine.  she sort of floored it sort of, but it was in rearview.
.

[DougSpindler]

Since we are doing energy comparisons.....  1 barrel of gas is the equivalent to the work 10 slave produce in a year.

[nctnico]

Since we are doing energy comparisons.....  1 barrel of gas is the equivalent to the work 10 slave produce in a year.

That is just as informative and correct as the MPGe number indeed. The biggest problem with the MPGe number is that is uses average fuel consumption. This makes EV look much better than they are. In my earlier post I already showed that you if you care about fuel consumption the financial break even point between an economic ICE car versus an EV is about half the distance between the earth and the moon. And that economic ICE car doesn't need to be a clunker. Nowadays they get 85kW from a 1 litre engine over a very wide RPM range.

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

What's wrong with the figures?  Here's what I'm getting (2018 eGolf, mostly city driving, live at the top of a hill)

13.9 kWh/100km

That figure only means that your car on average consumes 13.9 kWh off the battery every 100 km.

But, to take 1 kWh off the battery, you first have had to take about 1/0.85 kWh off the wall plug, so, in reality, your car uses 13.9/0.85 = 16.4 kWh/100km not 13.9.

That's what's wrong with the figures: 1) there are losses in the charging circuit, 2) the round trip efficiency of a battery isn't 100%, and 3) if it's a Tesla even more because charging a cold battery turns on a battery heater, and a hot one a battery cooler (and when charging at a supercharger).

ICEs aren't like that because to get one litre into the tank you take one litre off the gas pump, there are no losses.

[ahbushnell]

What's wrong with the figures?  Here's what I'm getting (2018 eGolf, mostly city driving, live at the top of a hill)

13.9 kWh/100km

That figure only means that your car on average consumes 13.9 kWh off the battery every 100 km.

But, to take 1 kWh off the battery, you first have had to take about 1/0.85 kWh off the wall plug, so, in reality, your car uses 13.9/0.85 = 16.4 kWh/100km not 13.9.

That's what's wrong with the figures: 1) there are losses in the charging circuit, 2) the round trip efficiency of a battery isn't 100%, and 3) if it's a Tesla even more because charging a cold battery turns on a battery heater, and a hot one a battery cooler (and when charging in a supercharger).

ICEs aren't like that because to get one litre into the tank you take one litre off the gas pump, there are no losses.

ICE has costs for transport of the fuel, electrical power to gas stations ...

[boffin]

What's wrong with the figures?  Here's what I'm getting (2018 eGolf, mostly city driving, live at the top of a hill)

13.9 kWh/100km

That figure only means that your car on average consumes 13.9 kWh off the battery every 100 km.

But, to take 1 kWh off the battery, you first have had to take about 1/0.85 kWh off the wall plug, so, in reality, your car uses 13.9/0.85 = 16.4 kWh/100km not 13.9.

That's what's wrong with the figures: 1) there are losses in the charging circuit, 2) the round trip efficiency of a battery isn't 100%, and 3) if it's a Tesla even more because charging a cold battery turns on a battery heater, and a hot one a battery cooler (and when charging in a supercharger).

ICEs aren't like that because to get one litre into the tank you take one litre off the gas pump, there are no losses.

I doubt the losses are 15% in the charging circuit.  I tend to find if the charge indicator shows 1/2, it takes about 19kWh to full (35kWh battery), probably closer to 10%

It's still, given the cheap Hydro based electricity in these parts so much cheaper than an ICE car.

[nctnico]

Keep telling yourself it is cheaper. You could have bought a decent but efficient ICE based car for about US $11K less (including your tax break). That buys you a whole lot of fuel and gets much less depreciation. I already did the math on how far you have to drive to reach the financial break even point. Please tell us how much you drive on average annually.

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

0.95 (95% charger efficiency) * 0.9 (90% li-ion round trip efficiency) = 0.85. Still have to add to that the Teslas' battery heater/cooler losses.

[boffin]

Keep telling yourself it is cheaper. You could have bought a decent but efficient ICE based car for about US $11K less (including your tax break). That buys you a whole lot of fuel and gets much less depreciation. I already did the math on how far you have to drive to reach the financial break even point. Please tell us how much you drive on average annually.

• I don't purchase vehicles in US$ in much the same way you don't buy them in UK Pounds or Danish Kroner. If you pay attention to who you're talking to, it will help your argument.
• I could not have bought an equivalent vehicle for C$14k (your claimed US$11k) less. I paid C$31K (after govt rebate - not a tax deduction). According to your math an equivalent car is C$17K, which barely exists for the cheapest of econoboxes.
• I live in a jurisdiction with the highest gasoline prices, and some of the lowest electricity rates in all of North America, which makes the purchase particularly effective.

[li]A slightly less well equipped Golf (comparing apples to apple), would come in at C$5k/less.  I'm saving about C$150/month ($10 electricity vs $160 petrol costs per month) right now vs my old car (2007 MB B200), so the difference should pay for itself in just under 3 years.  If I were compare it to a more modern better fuel consumption vehicle, that probably goes up to 5yr, but no more.
[/li][/list]

[mtdoc]

I've owned my Chevy Volt for 4 years now. In that time I have saved an average of about $100 per month in gasoline (net - after accounting for charging costs) .  That means I've saved approximately $4800 so far in gasoline costs.  I've also only needed one oil change so far since I rarely use the ICE.  So say another $200 in savings there.  Also, my brakes are good as new still thanks to regenerative braking.

My Volt cost me about $25k after my $7500 tax credit (which I make enough income to have fully realized).

Minus $5k in gas and oil savings so far means a net cost of about $20k  at this point.    Any  car which is even close to it in terms of performance, safety and quality of the ride, etc. would have cost me significantly more.  Even without the tax credit - I'd be at parity now.  Yes, eventually in another 10 years or so, I may want to replace the battery pack. That will be a significant cost. But in the meantime, the savings in gas, oil, brake servicing, transmission and engine servicing will more than have paid for that cost.

We recently bought a Chrysler Pacifica PHEV for my wife. The savings are already accumulating for it as well.

The cost of ownership of EVs and PHEVs (if driven mostly in electric mode) is so much lower compared to ICEs that even without federal tax credits, etc, there are several models which now are low enough cost to mean that over their lifespan they are likely to save the owners money.

BUT  - in the end - it's not only about money.  If the were the case, we'd all be driving the cheapest tin can on wheels. We all choose to strike a balance between cost and features when choosing a vehicle.  Even ignoring the environmental benefits - the amazing torque, quiet ride and wonderful convenience of not having to fill up my gas tank once or twice a week, are features I'd be willing to pay extra for. It's just a bonus that it turns out I don't have to.

I will never purchase a gas only vehicle again.  I do own an 2001 Toyota Tundra pick up truck I use for hauling, towing, etc.  Once there's a suitable EV or PHEV replacement available, I will be replacing it as well.

[nctnico]

Keep telling yourself it is cheaper. You could have bought a decent but efficient ICE based car for about US $11K less (including your tax break). That buys you a whole lot of fuel and gets much less depreciation. I already did the math on how far you have to drive to reach the financial break even point. Please tell us how much you drive on average annually.

• I don't purchase vehicles in US$ in much the same way you don't buy them in UK Pounds or Danish Kroner. If you pay attention to who you're talking to, it will help your argument.
• I could not have bought an equivalent vehicle for C$14k (your claimed US$11k) less. I paid C$31K (after govt rebate - not a tax deduction). According to your math an equivalent car is C$17K, which barely exists for the cheapest of econoboxes.
• I live in a jurisdiction with the highest gasoline prices, and some of the lowest electricity rates in all of North America, which makes the purchase particularly effective.

[li]A slightly less well equipped Golf (comparing apples to apple), would come in at C$5k/less.  I'm saving about C$150/month ($10 electricity vs $160 petrol costs per month) right now vs my old car (2007 MB B200), so the difference should pay for itself in just under 3 years.  If I were compare it to a more modern better fuel consumption vehicle, that probably goes up to 5yr, but no more.
[/li][/list]

But who says you need to buy a Golf? Take a Ford Focus 1.0 for example. Pretty similar to a Golf when it comes to size and comfort but without the VW price tag. The Ford Focus 1.0 costs C$22k according to an online price list. That is C$9K less for a car which actually does 5l/100km. Comparing to your old Mercedes (apparantly 8l/100km) is just nonsense because you are going to buy a new car anyway. You'll save 35% just on fuel so your fuels costs with the Ford Focus would be C$94 a month. C$9k/94=95.7  months=8 years. That is way more than 5 years!

[wraper]

But who says you need to buy a Golf? Take a Ford Focus 1.0 for example.

Yeah, those with dying engine.

[boffin]

Keep telling yourself it is cheaper. You could have bought a decent but efficient ICE based car for about US $11K less (including your tax break). That buys you a whole lot of fuel and gets much less depreciation. I already did the math on how far you have to drive to reach the financial break even point. Please tell us how much you drive on average annually.

• I don't purchase vehicles in US$ in much the same way you don't buy them in UK Pounds or Danish Kroner. If you pay attention to who you're talking to, it will help your argument.
• I could not have bought an equivalent vehicle for C$14k (your claimed US$11k) less. I paid C$31K (after govt rebate - not a tax deduction). According to your math an equivalent car is C$17K, which barely exists for the cheapest of econoboxes.
• I live in a jurisdiction with the highest gasoline prices, and some of the lowest electricity rates in all of North America, which makes the purchase particularly effective.

A slightly less well equipped Golf (comparing apples to apple), would come in at C$5k/less.  I'm saving about C$150/month ($10 electricity vs $160 petrol costs per month) right now vs my old car (2007 MB B200), so the difference should pay for itself in just under 3 years.  If I were compare it to a more modern better fuel consumption vehicle, that probably goes up to 5yr, but no more.

But who says you need to buy a Golf? Take a Ford Focus 1.0 for example. Pretty similar to a Golf when it comes to size and comfort but without the VW price tag. The Ford Focus 1.0 costs C$22k according to an online price list. That is C$9K less for a car which actually does 5l/100km. Comparing to your old Mercedes (apparantly 8l/100km) is just nonsense because you are going to buy a new car anyway. You'll save 35% just on fuel so your fuels costs with the Ford Focus would be C$94 a month. C$9k/94=95.7  months=8 years. That is way more than 5 years!

By your logic, everyone should buy the cheapest car available.  I bought a Golf, because I wanted something a little nicer/quieter/more comfortable.  Doing the comparison of a nice electric car with the cheapest ICE car available is an irrelevant comparison.[/list]

[f4eru]

Since we are doing energy comparisons.....  1 barrel of gas is the equivalent to the work 10 slave produce in a year.

Speaking of which:
Slave labor has been abolished.
As will be burning of fossil fuels very soon.

[nctnico]

Keep telling yourself it is cheaper. You could have bought a decent but efficient ICE based car for about US $11K less (including your tax break). That buys you a whole lot of fuel and gets much less depreciation. I already did the math on how far you have to drive to reach the financial break even point. Please tell us how much you drive on average annually.

• I don't purchase vehicles in US$ in much the same way you don't buy them in UK Pounds or Danish Kroner. If you pay attention to who you're talking to, it will help your argument.
• I could not have bought an equivalent vehicle for C$14k (your claimed US$11k) less. I paid C$31K (after govt rebate - not a tax deduction). According to your math an equivalent car is C$17K, which barely exists for the cheapest of econoboxes.
• I live in a jurisdiction with the highest gasoline prices, and some of the lowest electricity rates in all of North America, which makes the purchase particularly effective.

A slightly less well equipped Golf (comparing apples to apple), would come in at C$5k/less.  I'm saving about C$150/month ($10 electricity vs $160 petrol costs per month) right now vs my old car (2007 MB B200), so the difference should pay for itself in just under 3 years.  If I were compare it to a more modern better fuel consumption vehicle, that probably goes up to 5yr, but no more.

But who says you need to buy a Golf? Take a Ford Focus 1.0 for example. Pretty similar to a Golf when it comes to size and comfort but without the VW price tag. The Ford Focus 1.0 costs C$22k according to an online price list. That is C$9K less for a car which actually does 5l/100km. Comparing to your old Mercedes (apparantly 8l/100km) is just nonsense because you are going to buy a new car anyway. You'll save 35% just on fuel so your fuels costs with the Ford Focus would be C$94 a month. C$9k/94=95.7  months=8 years. That is way more than 5 years!

By your logic, everyone should buy the cheapest car available.  I bought a Golf, because I wanted something a little nicer/quieter/more comfortable.  Doing the comparison of a nice electric car with the cheapest ICE car available is an irrelevant comparison.[/list]

I know from my own experience that the Ford Focus is comparable to a Golf. They live in the same segment and the ICE based versions of the Golf cost about the same compared to the Ford Focus in Canada according to the same website. I'm not stupid! BTW I choose the Ford Focus as an example because I know it is available with an extremely efficient 1 litre engine.

[Kjelt]

VWs are way overpriced compared to Opel, Ford etc.

[wraper]

I'm not stupid! BTW I choose the Ford Focus as an example because I know it is available with an extremely efficient 1 litre engine.

The issue is that you likely will need to replace the engine faster than a battery in EV. Many people got screwed after just a few years.

[Kjelt]

Same with the first VW 1.4TSI engines lots lotsof problems and in Holland the importer did nothing, also with the engine belts they were made cheaper till some cars engine were a totall loss after 60000km because the belt broke on the freeway. So yes you can better choose a prooven engine technology.

[nctnico]

I'm not stupid! BTW I choose the Ford Focus as an example because I know it is available with an extremely efficient 1 litre engine.

The issue is that you likely will need to replace the engine faster than a battery in EV. Many people got screwed after just a few years.

There is an issue indeed with the very first batch of these models which is related to the cooling system. But there has been a recall (to replace a hose and reservoir) and engines are replaced under warranty.

[wraper]

I'm not stupid! BTW I choose the Ford Focus as an example because I know it is available with an extremely efficient 1 litre engine.

The issue is that you likely will need to replace the engine faster than a battery in EV. Many people got screwed after just a few years.

There is an issue indeed with the very first batch of these models which is related to the cooling system. But there has been a recall (to replace a hose and reservoir) and engines are replaced under warranty.

As of what people write on forums, engines still leak and seize after recall repair. And even the latest ones still do fail, not only early ones which were recalled. And guess what, if engine already failed (seized), they only offer partial discount, not free engine replacement. So you are still out of several $K in the best case if they offered partial discount.

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

One of my cars is a Ford, it's the seventh Ford I own, it's a pretty good car just like the previous six. I've also had two VWs I bought new, never again. But lemons happen.

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

BTW when people say "in the long term with an EV you'd save $", the problem with that is that nobody wants to have to drive the same car for 20 years in order to amortize it. I also don't believe it's ok for you to pay my new EV, as it happens with tax deductions etc.

[jonovid]

1970 Lancia Stratos Zero: A crazy concept from the Wedge Era - Sound & Driving on the Streets!
a car in need of electrification, the internal combustion engine is not happy with the slow
street diving.  in this vehicle a hybrid electric powertrain would make the car smoother
and more futuristic.

internal combustion engine  = poor efficiency
liquid fuel energy density  = excellent

electric motors        = excellent efficiency
electric battery energy density = poor

update-
what electric vehicles need to become mainstream is the electrolyte liquid fuel battery.
or fuel cell that uses liquid fuel at room temperature.
so the depleted electrolyte fuel is replaced or recycled at the gas pump.
having the same energy density & weight as petroleum fuels.

[f4eru]

nobody wants to have to drive the same car for 20 years in order to amortize it.

You don't need to. The falling price means that today it's amortized in a few years.
And in a few years, ICE won't even be an option any more.

And there will be economic models to cope with that new longevity of cars.