eevBLAB #63: How Affordable Are Electric Cars?

[lpickup]

Just wait and see what happens. Especially when the markets for EVs are no longer artificially maintained/created by subsidies and tax incentives.

I will.  Because thanks to the fact that battery costs continue to fall each year, subsidies are eventually not needed (unlike the fossil fuel industry which still to this day relies on deep subsidies and tax breaks because those oil & gas wells are not getting easier to find).

On a large scale EV sales are still a drop in the bucket. It is like Windows phone versus Android. A 50% increase for Windows phone may seem like a lot but with a marginal market share it still amounts to nothing.

Don't get fooled by big numbers without the big picture.

Yeah, this is the nature of practically any new technology.  It's not like it goes from 0 to 50% in a single year.  Especially with something like automobiles, which are large investments and have relatively long lifetimes.  I understand I need to explain this fact to the average layperson, but I didn't figure I would need to explain the effect of compound growth rates on an engineering forum. Don't get fooled by small numbers without the big picture (i.e. look at the trend, not just a snapshot in time).

And yes, hydrogen infrastructure is cheaper. Look it up yourself; it is about 4 times cheaper according to a German study. Not to mention convenient range and quick fueling.

Great, another German study.

My understanding is that a single hydrogen fuel station would cost between US$1-1.5 million.  Compare that to an 8-stall Tesla Supercharger site that costs about US$250,000.  And then finally consider the fact that not only could you build 4 Supercharger sites for each one H2 station, but you don't even need as many because most people will be able to charge at home or work and will only need a $500 L2 charging station, or like many people, just plug their mobile EVSE into a household outlet.  If I'm wrong, please show me the data and don't ask me to "look it up myself".

[SilverSolder]

Hydrogen has some "user acceptance issues" (think Hindenburg) that would need to be overcome, and proven in real world use, before this technology has a chance of displacing EVs.

If you have nuclear, hydro, geothermal, wind, etc. power, an EV seems a sound choice.

[Red Squirrel]

I would love an EV myself.   I recently got a new vehicle, a (used) F150... so not exactly the best thing for the planet, but I wanted a truck since I do lot of stuff around the house like construction stuff where it's nice to have.   If I could get an electric used truck for the same price as gas I would go electric in a heart beat.  The issue with electric is that they arn't making enough or making them attractive financially.  Go on any car lot, how many cars on there are electric?  You'll be lucky to find a single one.  They arn't promoting them at all.   This is something that needs to change, they need to make EVs a normal regular thing instead of a niche thing.   I can't justify the cost of buying new and will always buy used.   If there's hardly any EVs on the new market then it will be even longer until there are some on the used market.

Eventually I would love to get more into working on cars (need to buy a bigger property first) and one project I'd like to take on is an EV conversion.   The issue is sourcing out lithium cells though... very hard to find any reputable sites that sell them especially here in Canada.   You can get used Tesla battery packs off ebay but at the prices they are asking + shipping you may as well just buy a new Tesla.

[linux-works]

a lot of companies provide free charging at work.  how would that work with hydrogen?

people can home-charge in their garage, with electric.  again, same question to you.

and I said it before, people LOVE the torque you get from electric motors.  no one drives one and hates it.  not. a. single.  person.

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

and I said it before, people LOVE the torque you get from electric motors.  no one drives one and hates it.  not. a. single.  person.

I like my diesel more than my EV. You surely don't know it because in the USA ~ nobody drives diesel cars, but diesels have plenty of torque as well. It only takes two minutes to fill the tank and with a tank I can do ~ 1000 km. A similar SUV EV would have costed me 4x as much, has 1/3 the range (in theory), takes "an eternity" to recharge, and there are almost no places anywhere to refill.

EV Pros:
-Better "fuel" price per km, but, if and only if you can recharge at home (I can).

EV Cons:
-Car price begins at about 2x as much, SUVs at 4x.
-Can't recharge almost nowhere.
-Takes forever to recharge.
-No cheap third party parts => parts are expensive.
-Not easy to fix yourself => repairs are expensive.

EVs are only good for EV fans and early adopters and only as a second car. And you must have an excess of $ to spare because economically it doesn't make sense.

[linux-works]

I would disagree about the ev price.  it depends on what ev you are looking at.

the most common one in the bay area is the model 3 and its incredible how many you see around here.  and while the other teslas *are* truely overpriced and 'rich mans toys', the model 3 is normally priced.  I was driving a vw passat for the past 16 years and when I finally sold it and went with a model 3, the cost of the car was about the same as my vw.  car insurance was LOWER with my tesla.  ownership price is probably going to be lower.  and for bay area fueld costs, its definitely cheaper to drive and electric (and if you get free charging at work, which is more and more common, now, then its not even close, anymore).

its definitely not for everyone and every area of the world.  for me, being in the bay area, it was not a hard decision.  its my only car, I don't have a 2nd one and I don't even have home charging; but I'm not planning on going back to ICE, ever, if I can avoid it.

is there 'range anxiety' for those that don't have home charging?  yes, to some degree.  I don't wake up every day with a fully charged car; but I'm close enough to work that I can get there, recharge there and even have enough juice to be able to run home during the day for any random errand, run back to work and still have enough for the commute home and back again.

definitely an adjustment.  you do have to be good at planning.  but I think its totally worth it and very glad I converted over.

[Red Squirrel]

The other pro of EV is that it's more green, and we need to move to a world where we stop relying on burning fossil fuel if we want to try to stop climate change.  It's probably a lost cause at this point though. changes need to happen at large scale.   ex: big ships.

[nctnico]

The other pro of EV is that it's more green, and we need to move to a world where we stop relying on burning fossil fuel if we want to try to stop climate change.  It's probably a lost cause at this point though. changes need to happen at large scale.   ex: big ships.

But that is the problem. EVs aren't green today. They are way worse compared to an efficient hybrid (you have to take pollution from SO2 and NOx into account as well). And that isn't going to change very soon either. The whole EV mantra hinges on the pipe dream that one day we'll have electricity from renewable sources and batteries don't need materials which are mined by children.

[coppice]

and I said it before, people LOVE the torque you get from electric motors.  no one drives one and hates it.  not. a. single.  person.

When I first drove an (experimental) electric car in the early 90s the torque felt amazing.... but only the first few times I tried it. Then the novelty faded. The people around me who were developing the car (more specifically developing chunks of electronics - this was within Motorola Semiconductors) wanted everyone who visited to feel that surge the high torque provided. They all enjoyed it, but they all found the novelty quickly faded.

[SilverSolder]

and I said it before, people LOVE the torque you get from electric motors.  no one drives one and hates it.  not. a. single.  person.

When I first drove an (experimental) electric car in the early 90s the torque felt amazing.... but only the first few times I tried it. Then the novelty faded. The people around me who were developing the car (more specifically developing chunks of electronics - this was within Motorola Semiconductors) wanted everyone who visited to feel that surge the high torque provided. They all enjoyed it, but they all found the novelty quickly faded.

It's like owning a powerful gas (petrol) car, though, isn't it?  You don't flog it every time you leave an intersection, but once in a while when the little devil with the pitchfork stabs your shoulder...

[tszaboo]

The whole EV mantra hinges on the pipe dream that one day we'll have electricity from renewable sources

I've counted 49 countries, where more than 50% of electricity is made out of renewable sorces.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_electricity_production_from_renewable_sources

North Korea solved it better than here. While here they are playing around with solar bicycle paths and other nonsense, instead of giving instant 1000 EUR tax break to everyone who puts solar on the roof. No, I think we should just wait, until half the country will be under water.

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

You don't flog it every time you leave an intersection

No??? 

but once in a while when the little devil with the pitchfork stabs your shoulder...

The EV you just floor it and yee hawwww, most ICEs lose the race changing gears. But many diesels can pull out very well in 2nd gear, and 2nd gear goes up to almost 90 km/h... 

[coppice]

The whole EV mantra hinges on the pipe dream that one day we'll have electricity from renewable sources

I've counted 49 countries, where more than 50% of electricity is made out of renewable sorces.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_electricity_production_from_renewable_sources

North Korea solved it better than here. While here they are playing around with solar bicycle paths and other nonsense, instead of giving instant 1000 EUR tax break to everyone who puts solar on the roof. No, I think we should just wait, until half the country will be under water.

I don't know how accurate that chart is overall. The first thing I looked at was the UK, and the figures there make no sense at all. However, assuming its mostly accurate I note that most of the countries with a really good percentage of renewable energy get most of it from hydro power. That's not scalable. Some countries are blessed with the required natural resources, and some aren't. If you can find a similar chart from 30 years ago the hydro figures wouldn't be dramatically different. Its a low hanging fruit among renewables that was heavily exploited long ago.

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

But now they can pump the water back to the reservoir with renewables, no?

[nctnico]

The whole EV mantra hinges on the pipe dream that one day we'll have electricity from renewable sources

I've counted 49 countries, where more than 50% of electricity is made out of renewable sorces.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_electricity_production_from_renewable_sources

And most of those countries have almost no people living in there. So meh...

[lpickup]

But that is the problem. EVs aren't green today. They are way worse compared to an efficient hybrid (you have to take pollution from SO2 and NOx into account as well).

No, not true, at least not everywhere.  In even the "dirtiest" places of the mainland US, your hybrid would need to get over 51mpg to be equivalent to an EV, and in some areas it would have to be well over 100mpg (147mpg in California and 259mpg in New York).  Even as far back as 2016, if you weight this by areas where EVs have been sold, the weighted average for the entire country is 80mpg (https://blog.ucsusa.org/dave-reichmuth/new-data-show-electric-vehicles-continue-to-get-cleaner).  And by the way, this data is backed up by the GREET model (https://greet.es.anl.gov/) which takes into account all emissions including SO2, NOx as well as PM2.5 and PM10--don't forget those!  So please stop your mantra of EVs being "way worse".  At a minimum, this is only true in some regions, and is rapidly changing (see below).

And that isn't going to change very soon either. The whole EV mantra hinges on the pipe dream that one day we'll have electricity from renewable sources and batteries don't need materials which are mined by children.

You say it's a pipe dream, but those are just words.  It's not.  It's actually happening.  You seemingly ignore the fact that the cost of renewables (wind & solar) have already reached a cost tipping point not only in comparison with new coal & gas, but even now with existing coal.  I.e. it's cheaper to build a brand new solar or wind farm than it is to continue using an existing, already built coal plant.  There may not have been a financial reason to make the switch before now, but now it just doesn't make sense to go the renewable route, environmental OR financial, and the transition, if you care to look at it, is happening now.  The same is true for EVs.  We are nearing a crossover point with ICE vehicles as well.

And yes, ethically sourcing cobalt is an important matter.  We can't ignore it.  Fortunately EV makers are actively engaged in efforts to ethically source cobalt or reduce usage to 0%.  Interestingly enough, the oil industry is a consumer of cobalt as well as a catalyst for de-sulphurizing cruide oil.  Unlike it's use in batteries, where the material can be recovered through recycling, a portion of the cobalt catalyst is lost to the end fuel where it is burned and lost to the environment.

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

There are about 275e6 cars in the USA (1), electricity generation is 4171e9 kWh/year (2), double the generation figure and you could have 4171e9/275e6/365.25= 42 kWh/car/day.

(1) https://www.statista.com/statistics/183505/number-of-vehicles-in-the-united-states-since-1990/
(2) https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3

[nctnico]

You say it's a pipe dream, but those are just words.  It's not.  It's actually happening.  You seemingly ignore the fact that the cost of renewables (wind & solar) have already reached a cost tipping point not only in comparison with new coal & gas, but even now with existing coal.

Renewables are cheap because they don't need storage -yet-. Currently renewables like solar and wind can't work without coal and gas so there is a limit to the amount of renewables.

[lpickup]

There are about 275e6 cars in the USA (1), electricity generation is 4171e9 kWh/year (2), double the generation figure and you could have 4171e9/275e6/365.25= 42 kWh/car/day.

(1) https://www.statista.com/statistics/183505/number-of-vehicles-in-the-united-states-since-1990/
(2) https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3

I'm not following what you are trying to say here or what your point is.

[Red Squirrel]

The other pro of EV is that it's more green, and we need to move to a world where we stop relying on burning fossil fuel if we want to try to stop climate change.  It's probably a lost cause at this point though. changes need to happen at large scale.   ex: big ships.

But that is the problem. EVs aren't green today. They are way worse compared to an efficient hybrid (you have to take pollution from SO2 and NOx into account as well). And that isn't going to change very soon either. The whole EV mantra hinges on the pipe dream that one day we'll have electricity from renewable sources and batteries don't need materials which are mined by children.

Even in 3rd world places still using 18th century tech such as coal it still ends up being better than individual cars burning gas.  But ideally if you get an EV you live in an area that is already using mostly renewable and you can always supplement your own as well. That's what I would do.  Nuclear is also clean, even though it's not renewable.  It would be nice if the stigma would go away and at very least renewable could be coupled with nuclear and all the fossil fuel plants could be shut down.  Nuclear would be a good go between until we can actually go 100% green.

We really do need to work on large scale energy storage though, I think that is really the key to having a more sustainable energy source.  We also need better small scale storage to make large electric vehicles (like large boats) viable.   Lithium Ion is good but we need something even better.

[thm_w]

Even in 3rd world places still using 18th century tech such as coal it still ends up being better than individual cars burning gas.  But ideally if you get an EV you live in an area that is already using mostly renewable and you can always supplement your own as well. That's what I would do.  Nuclear is also clean, even though it's not renewable.  It would be nice if the stigma would go away and at very least renewable could be coupled with nuclear and all the fossil fuel plants could be shut down.  Nuclear would be a good go between until we can actually go 100% green.

We really do need to work on large scale energy storage though, I think that is really the key to having a more sustainable energy source.  We also need better small scale storage to make large electric vehicles (like large boats) viable.   Lithium Ion is good but we need something even better.

He refuses to give up that talking point even though I've linked sources noting otherwise.
If he wants to continue to use the point with the caveat *in areas that are purely powered by coal and will not change within the next few years, eg a small percentage of the people in this thread* then I'd say its a valid statement.

Coal is a horrific and primitive fuel.
There might be recent improvements, but based on past results I would be highly skeptical.

[coppice]

Coal is a horrific and primitive fuel.

Yeah, its really horrifying how it built the modern world, and lifted millions out of abject misery. Get a grip. Its certainly a fuel we need to replace now, but without it we would probably still be living in the middle ages.

[thm_w]

Yeah, its really horrifying how it built the modern world, and lifted millions out of abject misery. Get a grip. Its certainly a fuel we need to replace now, but without it we would probably still be living in the middle ages.

That is exactly what I meant
Do you think I somehow meant we never should have used it? no.

edit: my fault for using "primitive" incorrectly it seems. Perhaps a better word exists, obsolete or outdated, but they don't have the same negative connotation.

[nctnico]

The other pro of EV is that it's more green, and we need to move to a world where we stop relying on burning fossil fuel if we want to try to stop climate change.  It's probably a lost cause at this point though. changes need to happen at large scale.   ex: big ships.

But that is the problem. EVs aren't green today. They are way worse compared to an efficient hybrid (you have to take pollution from SO2 and NOx into account as well). And that isn't going to change very soon either. The whole EV mantra hinges on the pipe dream that one day we'll have electricity from renewable sources and batteries don't need materials which are mined by children.

Even in 3rd world places still using 18th century tech such as coal it still ends up being better than individual cars burning gas.

But it isn't. Compared to an modern hybrid (we are not going to compare 20 year old diesel cars with brand new EVs ofcourse) the hybrid wins both on SO2 and NOx. Even in China <10ppm sulfur content fuel is mandatory for cars (and trucks). However coal and gas fired plants (and also the plants which burn bio-mass!) are under much less strict regulations compared to ICE cars. These are simple government regulations which make EVs much more dirty to operate. Now ofcourse people can continue to claim this will change in the future but fail to state when and where exactly. Fossil fuels aren't going away in the next 5 years (and probably longer because at some point fossil fuels can't be replaced without storage) so a modern hybrid is the cleanest choice. The kicker is that governments are so focussed on CO2 reduction that they forget to look at the bigger picture. One example: in the Netherlands subsidies on bio-mass heating furnaces have been stopped beginning this year because of the NOx and other harmfull emissions. The bottom line is: you can't keep focussing on small facets without looking at the big picture.

[thm_w]

But it isn't. Compared to an modern hybrid (we are not going to compare 20 year old diesel cars with brand new EVs ofcourse) the hybrid wins both on SO2 and NOx. Even in China <10ppm sulfur content fuel is mandatory for cars (and trucks). However coal and gas fired plants (and also the plants which burn bio-mass!) are under much less strict regulations compared to ICE cars. These are simple government regulations which make EVs much more dirty to operate. Now ofcourse people can continue to claim this will change in the future but fail to state when exactly. Fossil fuels aren't going away in the next 5 years (and probably longer because at some point fossil fuels can't be replaced without storage) so a modern hybrid is the cleanest choice *in china*.

You somehow forgot that point, again, for the third time. Has a single person from China or India posted in this thread?
Even in your own country its only 15% coal: https://build.export.gov/build/groups/public/@eg_us_ca/documents/webcontent/eg_us_ca_112261.pdf
With the commitment to shut all coal plants down by 2029.