Electric cars

Martyn1981

News on the Sono Sion, a truly(?) self charging electric car, well ...... partially perhaps.

NEVS Will Build Sion Solar-Powered Electric Car At Former SAAB Factory In Sweden

RichardD1970

Martyn1981 wrote: »

Nope, you've missed the point (probably deliberately).

Z suggested that many people will be fine with a BEV, you spun off about people who can't charge at home. So I simply asked you if only 1.4% of people can plug in at home and referenced your post (so you couldn't argue about the chosen figure (yet you have)) to 'suggest' that the market for PEV's is far larger.

So no need for maths, no need for spin, no need for obfuscation, only a need to remain within context, and answer a simple question.




Are you 'suggesting' that comes to 98.6%? If not, then the market today, even if we (wrongly) conclude that those people as you describe, have no reasonable source of charging, is far greater than 1.4%.




If it's only a matter of perception, which I believe is true, then harping on about tower blocks and inner city apartments with people who apparently own cars (but don't have anywhere to park them) is irrelevant, as we both agree then that the real market is much larger than 1.4%.




I appreciate it was lighthearted, I was simply pointing out that it was completely untrue. I stated that "AGW won't solve itself you know." and you stated, "Well, yes it actually will, if left unchecked."

I shouldn't have to explain this to you, but sorting something commonly means fixing, like putting out a house fire, not standing back and saying it will sort itself once the house has completely burnt down.

Take the A out of AGW and you have natural GW, something that has been very well balanced now for 100's of thousands of years, only becoming 'unnatural' when CO2 ppm's that had sat relatively close to 280 for that period till around the late 1800's, shot up to, and past 400ppm's due to human related CO2 emissions.

If we don't sort AGW very, very soon, then there's a good chance we will hit runaway levels that we will not be able to prevent.

One of the solutions to this problem is clean renewable energy (RE) generation.

Another solution is energy storage, as this allows far higher levels of intermittent RE penetration, all the way up to 100%

Another solution is to reduce GHGe's by moving transport away from FF's as soon as possible to electrical power.

And, as I'm sure you are wondering where I'm going with this, these 3 massive areas (leccy generation, leccy storage, and leccy consumption) are areas (industries even) that Tesla are involved with. 3 key interlaced areas if you look at the big picture, rather than the small picture:



So if you want EV's, especially BEV's to succeed, then we should celebrate companies that operate in these key related areas, not belittle them, nor fail to understand the importance of all the parts. So I stand by my original comment that has set off this most recent 'disagreement':

Nope, it's you who have missed the point I was making.

The current BEV market stands at circa 1.4% of all cars sold worldwide. FACT. It has grown fast in the last few years but still has a long way to go.

The potential market is, as you suggest potentially close to 100%. But for that to happen there need to be a paradigm shift in the perception of BEV by the general car buying public, and that will be easier and accelerated with an improvement in infrastructure to mollify the fears and perceived inconvenience of owning a BEV. That is a slow process but is getting there.

I never said/implied or in anyway intimated that only 1.4% of the population could plug in at home, hence I didn't respond, that's your misinterpretation of my comments regarding the current market sales.

I'm not "harping on" about tower block etc (first time I think I've mentioned them) and it is not irrelevant but it is a very real concern for those people; that there is insufficient infrastructure to allow them the convenience (yes, that word again, as it is a major consideration for a lot of people when planning such a large and often integral part of their day to day life) to charge without some sort of added disruption to their normal routine.

I would also like to point out that I have never "belittled" any BEV producing companies, here or elsewhere, for the work they are carrying out. In fact I was seriously considering a Nissan Leaf about 5-6 years ago, even having a test drive and looking at finance options etc. Unfortunately circumstances change so that was put off indefinitely. A BEV would suit me perfectly.

As to your original comment

And we need loads of BEV manufacturers, since Tesla can't do this alone,

There are already, with more coming along all the time and Tesla aren't doing it alone, with various other initiatives and studies being carried out looking at second life use and end of life recycling etc.

https://teamtalk.jaguarlandrover.com/news/uk-to-become-ev-battery-production-powerhouse-thanks-to-faraday-challenge-initiative

https://recyclinginternational.com/batteries/growth-of-electric-vehicles-in-uk-drives-need-for-battery-recycling/

https://circulareconomy.europa.eu/platform/sites/default/files/circular_economy_impacts_batteries_for_evs.pdf

https://cleantechnica.com/2018/10/13/renaults-advanced-battery-storage-program-explores-the-potential-of-second-life-ev-batteries/

https://cleantechnica.com/2018/03/24/nissan-pushes-energy-storage-second-life-battery-initiative/

But surely you know this already, and that Tesla aren't doing it alone?

As for your house fire analogy. Yes it would be preferable to stop the fire early (even better to not have a fire in the first place), but if left untouched, the issue (ie the fire) would go away of it's own accord. Not the best outcome agreed, but an outcome nevertheless. :rotfl:

To put it bluntly if humans die out due to AGW then AGW ceases to be a thing.

NigeWick

RichardD1970 wrote: »

There are millions of people, in this country alone, who don't have access to off street parking, all the people in tower block, inner city apartments etc, etc who will never be able to "plug in" at home.

Just how many ICE vehicle owners fuel their vehicles at home?

buglawton

The future is BEVs costing half as much in real terms as now, but with cheap overnight tariffs disappearing once everone is trying to draw 7KW overnight. Plus road pricing to apply to all vehicles. Now as before motorway service stations will gouge on the energy prices if you want a fast convenient refuel. I'm not expecting the real cost of private motoring to ever drop. What will happen is that houses on narrow traffic-ridden streets, especially near traffic lights, will shoot up in value.

RichardD1970

NigeWick wrote: »

Just how many ICE vehicle owners fuel their vehicles at home?

!!!!!!, yes I know, read what I've written in the context it is written.

The fueling of ICE is part of the learned routine that people have had for the last 100 odd years.

They have grown up with it and it is something you do automatically that adds an extra couple of minutes to whatever journey you were already doing.

To change people's perceptions of fueling a BEV takes time, especially if they don't/can't have a charging facility at home. The lack of decent infrastructure means that fuelings have to be more planned and considered, you can't just pop in to the local petrol station and fill up in a couple of minutes on the way out.

People are lazy and don't like change/disruption to the norm so any incentive to go BEV needs to overcome large, often imaginary, hurdles before most would even consider the option.

Yes it is workable for most people, however they need convincing of it. And getting a more integrated and complete charging network would be a big step.

zeupater

RichardD1970 wrote: »

!!!!!!, yes I know, read what I've written in the context it is written.

The fueling of ICE is part of the learned routine that people have had for the last 100 odd years.

They have grown up with it and it is something you do automatically that adds an extra couple of minutes to whatever journey you were already doing.

To change people's perceptions of fueling a BEV takes time, especially if they don't/can't have a charging facility at home. The lack of decent infrastructure means that fuelings have to be more planned and considered, you can't just pop in to the local petrol station and fill up in a couple of minutes on the way out.

People are lazy and don't like change/disruption to the norm so any incentive to go BEV needs to overcome large, often imaginary, hurdles before most would even consider the option.

Yes it is workable for most people, however they need convincing of it. And getting a more integrated and complete charging network would be a big step.

Hi

Yet the economics are bound to change the mindset much faster than many currently accept ... higher fuel & vehicle taxation along with urban clean air charge zones push up cost of ownership of ICEVs, scrappage schemes starve sectors of the 'pre-owned' market, fewer ICEVs lead to fewer petrol stations & lower convenience, market pressure steers supermarkets towards charging points & away from filling stations (so even higher pump prices!), low fossil fuel vehicle sales drive unit prices higher, average emissions taxation on manufacturers destroy ICEV profitability, etc, etc ...

... against this battery costs fall, BEV costs fall, electric per mile motoring costs fall, more infrastructure, charging at home, increased microgeneration, more convenience, higher volumes, lower complexity, lower maintenance requirements, higher sector profitability, incentives, etc, etc ...

There's the issue in a nutshell, on one hand costs & inconvenience are only set to rise, whilst on the other they're moving the opposite way - in just a few years it's not likely to be a case of change being a personal preference but how deep your pockets need to be to avoid change ... as soon as this enters the collective mindset the resistance to change is set to fade pretty quickly ...

HTH
Z

Martyn1981

RichardD1970 wrote: »

Nope, it's you who have missed the point I was making.

The current BEV market stands at circa 1.4% of all cars sold worldwide. FACT. It has grown fast in the last few years but still has a long way to go.

The potential market is, as you suggest potentially close to 100%. But for that to happen there need to be a paradigm shift in the perception of BEV by the general car buying public, and that will be easier and accelerated with an improvement in infrastructure to mollify the fears and perceived inconvenience of owning a BEV. That is a slow process but is getting there.

I never said/implied or in anyway intimated that only 1.4% of the population could plug in at home, hence I didn't respond, that's your misinterpretation of my comments regarding the current market sales.

But I never said you intimated that only 1.4% of the population could plug in, I asked you if the figure was only 1.4%, and you told me to do the maths regarding the percentage of BEV's sold.

So you missed (probably deliberately) the point I was making and instead implied that I didn't believe official sales figs. Now you are trying to suggest I said or implied something else. perhaps it's time to stop playing your games and simply chat/respond to comments rather than play spin doctor (badly).

RichardD1970 wrote: »

I'm not "harping on" about tower block etc (first time I think I've mentioned them) and it is not irrelevant but it is a very real concern for those people; that there is insufficient infrastructure to allow them the convenience (yes, that word again, as it is a major consideration for a lot of people when planning such a large and often integral part of their day to day life) to charge without some sort of added disruption to their normal routine.

Unless tower block et al occupants add up to 98.6%, then the issue is mute, and your bringing it up was nothing but obfuscation, as the market simply for those with off road parking is vastly greater than 1.4% (yes), so even if we pretend all those with no off street parking have vehicles and nowhere to park them, it's irrelevant to the issue at hand.

RichardD1970 wrote: »

I would also like to point out that I have never "belittled" any BEV producing companies, here or elsewhere, for the work they are carrying out. In fact I was seriously considering a Nissan Leaf about 5-6 years ago, even having a test drive and looking at finance options etc. Unfortunately circumstances change so that was put off indefinitely. A BEV would suit me perfectly.

I mentioned Tesla, and the need for more companies, and you 'went off on one' again. It wasn't even a pro Tesla, or anti anyone else comment. Calm down. [BTW, do you really need to swear in almost all your posts?]

RichardD1970 wrote: »

As to your original comment There are already, with more coming along all the time and Tesla aren't doing it alone, with various other initiatives and studies being carried out looking at second life use and end of life recycling etc.

But surely you know this already, and that Tesla aren't doing it alone?

Seriously, my original comment was that offensive to you? Tesla are the only Western country making profitable BEV's, the only Western company making sizeable numbers of BEV's (but a shout out to Nissan and Renault for their efforts), and the largest manufacturer of BEV's in the world.

Yet - that's not nearly enough, is it? Is 1.4% (including all others) enough? You can't use it to prove that BEV sales are small, whilst at the same time defend BEV production by all (other) companies which are smaller than Tesla.

NO. So we need lots more production from Tesla, and lots of companies matching that higher production goal, not what Tesla is making today, and certainly not what they are making today.

RichardD1970 wrote: »

As for your house fire analogy. Yes it would be preferable to stop the fire early (even better to not have a fire in the first place), but if left untouched, the issue (ie the fire) would go away of it's own accord. Not the best outcome agreed, but an outcome nevertheless. :rotfl:

To put it bluntly if humans die out due to AGW then AGW ceases to be a thing.

Outcome, yes, but you didn't say outcome did you? I said:

AGW won't solve itself you know.

and you said:

RichardD1970 wrote: »

Well, yes it actually will, if left unchecked. :whistle:

So you (in context) said solved, not reach an outcome, but solved, and I don't think you'd consider firefighters letting your house burn to the ground is an acceptable 'solution', or would you?

RichardD1970 wrote: »

To put it bluntly if humans die out due to AGW then AGW ceases to be a thing.

Yep, it ceases 'to be a thing'. But 'ceasing to be a thing' like 'outcome' is not the same as solved from the human viewpoint, is it?

I appreciate that your comment was lighthearted, but on such a serious issue, I thought it was worth pointing out that your comment was 100% wrong. Since then you've simply played word games to defend a statement (lighthearted) that was 100% wrong, effectively making it less and less a lighthearted issue. So please end this nonsense of yours.

Martyn1981

RichardD1970 wrote: »

!!!!!!, yes I know, read what I've written in the context it is written.

The fueling of ICE is part of the learned routine that people have had for the last 100 odd years.

They have grown up with it and it is something you do automatically that adds an extra couple of minutes to whatever journey you were already doing.

To change people's perceptions of fueling a BEV takes time, especially if they don't/can't have a charging facility at home. The lack of decent infrastructure means that fuelings have to be more planned and considered, you can't just pop in to the local petrol station and fill up in a couple of minutes on the way out.

People are lazy and don't like change/disruption to the norm so any incentive to go BEV needs to overcome large, often imaginary, hurdles before most would even consider the option.

Yes it is workable for most people, however they need convincing of it. And getting a more integrated and complete charging network would be a big step.

Whilst mostly true, it's also mostly irrelevant as the market is supply constrained. Using your 1.4% figure (so we agree), the market for those who won't have the issues you raise is enormous, outstripping supply massively - even if Tesla ramp up production massively it won't be enough, even they can't do it alone .

As that (easier) market shifts to BEV's, infrastructure will continue to develop and rollout for the more tricky cases, and those 'tricky cases' folk will also be learning about BEV's and charging simply from chatting to others.

The disruptive 'S' curve tends to kick into high gear at around 8%, so that seems to be the number needed for almost all others to know somebody, or learn about a new technology (learn of existence).

AdrianC

I'm not sure looking at the entirety of the global market is terribly useful. There's a heck of a lot of vehicles sold in developing-world markets which are low-tech, low-cost.

Perhaps looking at the major developed-world markets would make more sense? In fact, why not just look at the EU/EFTA?

https://www.best-selling-cars.com/electric/latest-europe-electric-and-plug-in-hybrid-car-sales-per-eu-and-efta-country/

15.6m cars registered in 2018 - 0% change on 2017

1.3% BEV - +48.2%
1.2% PHEV - +19.2%
3.9% "hybrid" inc PHEV, so 2.7% nPHEV - +33%
56% petrol - +12.4%
35% diesel - -18%

So IC-only vehicles as a whole were down a bit, from 93% to 90% of the total market. But the only loss was diesels.
Petrol cars, though, were up by nearly one extra car for every eight sold.
Just the increase alone in petrol car sales was almost three cars for each electrically-chargeable vehicle sold in total.
For each single diesel sale that moved to plug-in, ten went to petrol.

Look at the break-down by country, and there's nine countries that more than doubled sales. But eight of those had sold <100 cars in 2017.

zeupater

AdrianC wrote: »

I'm not sure looking at the entirety of the global market is terribly useful. There's a heck of a lot of vehicles sold in developing-world markets which are low-tech, low-cost.

Perhaps looking at the major developed-world markets would make more sense? In fact, why not just look at the EU/EFTA?

https://www.best-selling-cars.com/electric/latest-europe-electric-and-plug-in-hybrid-car-sales-per-eu-and-efta-country/

15.6m cars registered in 2018 - 0% change on 2017

1.3% BEV - +48.2%
1.2% PHEV - +19.2%
3.9% "hybrid" inc PHEV, so 2.7% nPHEV - +33%
56% petrol - +12.4%
35% diesel - -18%

So IC-only vehicles as a whole were down a bit, from 93% to 90% of the total market. But the only loss was diesels.
Petrol cars, though, were up by nearly one extra car for every eight sold.
Just the increase alone in petrol car sales was almost three cars for each electrically-chargeable vehicle sold in total.
For each single diesel sale that moved to plug-in, ten went to petrol.

Look at the break-down by country, and there's nine countries that more than doubled sales. But eight of those had sold <100 cars in 2017.

Hi

So your prediction for this year is that the percentage of the European market representing pure fossil fuel vehicles will ..

- Increase ?
- Remain as is ?
- Decrease ?

Market share isn't so much the issue at the moment, it's the relative change in annual sales that's key to sector performance & this should be considered on a trend basis, not simply comparing two years ...

It's all about efficiency & change management at the moment, so no matter which type of hybrid you'd want to consider, expect rapid & considerable changes in volumes & percentages in that sector over the next few years ...

HTH
Z