Battery Electric Vehicle News / Enjoying the Transportation Revolution

2nd_time_buyer

orrery said:

2nd_time_buyer said:

I think the chip shortage is largely a red herring.

I don't think that those new car buyers, who are having to take delivery of cars with options missed off due to chip shortages, are likely to agree. The manufacturers are even declining to refund the cost of the options that are missing, saying: You can cancel if you want but we can sell your new car to someone else with no issue.

I ordered a new car in October and had to sign a disclaimer on delivery dates due to known chip supply issues - and the quoted date is 1st June 2022.

It doesn't sound very red or herring-like to me.

My point was not that there isn't a chip shortage but that it may be being over-used as an excuse

We had some work done in the garden a few months ago. The brickie said he had to increase the daily rate from £200-300 because of material prices had gone through the roof - he was re-using my bricks, so I wasn't entirely convinced.

I think the chip shortage is being used as a catch-all for lots of supply issues in the car sector. However, it is also a good bargaining chip: 

"You can cancel if you want but we can sell your new car to someone else with no issue."

Does not sound the ideal place to negotiate for a discount. It is the kind of psychology that makes you feel very fortunate to be spending a huge amount of money on a car you didn't order. 

Supply is short, because the chips are being bought as a commodity and are being horded. The chips that are used in cars are very specific so the excuse of increased demand for computers during COVID is difficult to believe. If it was true, then I would imagine a £30k car would get presence over a £300 laptop (which are still readily available).  

It may suit the manufactures to have lower sales with increased profit margins whilst they transition to BEVs. So I wouldn't be surprised if they continue to blame chip shortage for as long as possible. 

JKenH

Martyn1981 said:

michaels said:

JKenH said:

orrery said:

JKenH said:

“On a broader scale, Toyota Motor Corporation continues to dig in its heels as one of the few major automakers that has yet to set an expiry for gasoline vehicle production.”

What if zero carbon synthetic fuels do take off? Won’t they look a bit silly then? We just don’t know what the state of technology will be in the auto sector by then?

But we do know a few basic facts that relate to these issues. Basically, we know the direction of travel - EVs have outperformed all expectations and the evidence is that drivers love them. The death of the ICE will be driven by buyers, not by car manufacturers, which is why I've never been a supporter of some arbitrary cut-off date (2030, 2035 whatever).

Liquid fuels have to be manufactured. By the time you've pushed hydrogen through a fuel cell in a HFCEV you'll have expended 3 to 4 times the energy you would have used had you just charged your EV. That means that hydrogen (or hydrogen derived liquid fuels) will always cost roughly what we pay for petrol now.

Given a couple more years of EV development and falling prices, who in their right mind is going to buy a petrol car that costs more to buy, more to service, more to fuel and is less reliable, than an EV? Some analysts are projecting that people won't be able to afford to run an ICE, even if they were given one for free, in a few years time.

That's the issue with Toyota and EVs. They are the one company who could have been leading the pack after the massive success of the Prius, but they are nowhere to be seen. Still no EV announcement, just lots of puff about 'EV concept cars'. They are caught-up in their own arrogance, thinking that they can just turn on production of EVs which is a mistake - witness the issues that VW group have had with their EV range, ID3s parked on airfields due to braking software issues, no over-the-air updates, still no working charge timers (ID4, Enyaq) and unlikely to be fixed until Q2 2022.

If zero-carbon fuels take off? A HFCEV is just an EV with a smaller battery and a fuel cell - I'd be surprised if most car manufacturers don't have a project going in the background to allow lorries, coaches and vans to use hydrogen or other such fuels.

I didn’t mention fuel cells. I was actually talking about carbon neutral synthetic fuels which are a straight replacement for oil derived fuels made from atmospheric carbon and hydrogen and can be stored and distributed in the same way as petrol and diesel. 

This article from Bosch explains what they are.

https://www.bosch.com/stories/synthetic-fuels/

They will need a supply of hydrogen but with all the very cheap solar that is envisioned electrolysis of water to produce hydrogen may become commercially viable. Bosch suggest a figure of between €1.0 and €1.4/ litre maybe achievable. I am not saying this will happen but am simply keeping an open mind which is how we make progress. The ICE lobby derided the prospects of EVs 15 years ago and now EV supporters are deriding any alternative to EVs. Just because something doesn’t seem to be commercially viable now doesn’t mean the economics won’t change in 10-15 years time.

Porsche have been working on this for some time and already have a pilot plant. I believe it costs them somewhere in the region of $10 to make a litre now but suggested it may fall to around $2. 

As carbon capture becomes more common we do have to dispose of that carbon and with surplus solar or even wind derived electricity it is a good environmental solution. It many parts of the world it will be a long while before EVs become zero carbon so I can’t see why anyone would want to dismiss it.

I have an EV and very much enjoy driving it. It is far superior to an ICE car in that respect and for local use filling it with electricity at home is far more convenient than standing out in the cold and rain holding a petrol pump. 

The mistake most of us make is assuming that because we think something is the best thing since sliced bread others will as well. My wife is aware of all the benefits of an EV but would not want one as an alternative to her petrol car (which she hardly uses). Her user experience is the same as mine yet for her the inconvenience of public charging outweighs the benefits of driving/owning an EV. As I have commented many times the charging experience for me has deteriorated as more EVs have hit the road. As new EVs are currently being sold the ratio of cars to chargers is increasing. While the ratio in 2019 was around one in 11(IRIC) in 2021 only one charger was added for every 50 or so new EVs. 

Does anything that involves combustion not create NOx nasties though?

Timely news on synth fuels and NOx. Yes you're right, NOx is just as bad, but PM's did drop. So might as well put the RE energy into BEV's or H2 into HFCV's.

I like the description of synth fuels as a FF trojan horse, it reminds me of 'clean coal', 'FF CCS' and 'blue hydrogen'.

Magic green fuels: Why synthetic fuels in cars will not solve Europe’s pollution problems

• No difference in NOx emissions were observed for any of the e-fuels tested either on the lab or on road tests compared to today’s petrol fuel. This means that e-fuels emit the same amount of NOx pollution as fossil fuels today, so the use of e-petrol in cars will have little impact on NOx emissions which are at the heart of toxic NO2 pollution across Europe’s cities.

• A substantial decrease in particle emissions was observed on all tests. The number of particle emissions (PN) larger than 10 nm decreased by 97% on the lab test, and by 81-86% on the RDE test cycle. While this was a significant improvement compared to the fossil fuel tested – and is many times below the legal limit – the very large number of particles emitted out of the exhaust in the first place meant that particle pollution was far from eliminated. Even with the use of 100% e-petrol blends, at least 2.2 billion particles were still released for every kilometer driven. There was no difference observed in particle mass (PM) emissions.

• Toxic carbon monoxide emissions were much higher with the e-petrol blends tested. Emissions were up to almost 3 times higher on the lab WLTC test and 1.2-1.5 times higher on the RDE test compared to fossil fuel. The largest increase in emissions occurred when the engine was first switched on, which happens often in towns and cities.

• Hydrocarbon emissions, i.e harmful chemical compounds made of hydrogen and carbon, decreased by 23-40% on the WLTC test but no difference was observed on the RDE test due to low emissions for all fuels. Emissions of dangerous but not yet regulated aldehydes – acetaldehyde and formaldehyde – decreased with the use of e-fuels when the engine was first switched on, but no significant difference was seen on the test overall.

• Ammonia emissions of two e-petrol blends roughly doubled on the RDE test, with emissions particularly increasing after the engine is first switched on (cold start) which frequently occurs in towns and cities. These results indicate that some e-petrol blends may cause an increase in ammonia emissions which is a precursor to PM2.5 pollution.

I’d be interested to hear what the OEMs have to say about synthetic fuel and emissions. I was actually surprised just how well they did in the emissions test. You would think sticking a fuel in an engine designed to run on something else would produce much higher emissions, so it is a good start that it has performed so well. OEMs spend £millions on research to reduce emissions so I would be surprised if they couldn’t do a little better.

Euro 7 emission regs will in any event slash NOx further. 

I am beginning to notice a lot of negativity in the green press to any transport alternative that isn’t electric powered. Is this the next generation of FUD? Pressure groups that have been campaigning for electric cars for some time are not likely to leave the door even slightly ajar for the anything the ICE industry might come up with. The argument was originally about CO2 and Methane but now that battle has been won the argument is moving onto emissions which have already been reduced a hundredfold and are set to go even lower. Electric cars are far from perfect environmentally when you look at what is involved in battery manufacture. It seems that the war is not against climate change anymore but fighting the legacy industries on any front.

ABrass

E Fuels might in theory work, but there is no chance they'll be cost effective. Even the target prices listed of $1.5-2 a litre production cost is something like four times the cost to produce oil at the moment.

They might make sense for planes where weight is critical, but for road vehicles they're just a waste of time to discuss.

orrery

2nd_time_buyer said:
Supply is short, because the chips are being bought as a commodity and are being horded. The chips that are used in cars are very specific so the excuse of increased demand for computers during COVID is difficult to believe. If it was true, then I would imagine a £30k car would get presence over a £300 laptop (which are still readily available).

The issue is capacity in the 'fabs' that make the chips. If you make a chip for a laptop then your production line can't be making chips for cars. Chip demand has been increasing by 5% per year and the pandemic has delayed almost everything but accelerated sales of laptops and other home electronics, therefore the pipeline for automotive chips has been disrupted. Automotive works on 'just in time' for sub-assemblies and therefore the sub-assembly manufacturers (who are not the car companies) have to manage their manufacturing with scheduled call-offs from the chip suppliers - these call-offs will have been disrupted by the pandemic too, and no-one in the chain will have been willing to hold stock.

Just because you don't like the story doesn't make it a red herring, unless you have evidence for your views.

2nd_time_buyer

"If you make a chip for a laptop then your production line can't be making chips for cars."

In normal times these chips cost a few pence to a few pounds. Even a 100 fold price increases, might only account for an extra couple of hundred pounds on a new car. It would also account for a similar increase in the price of computers. 

Other than specific bubble markets e.g. graphic cards, we are not seeing huge increases in computer prices. Cars have less computing power than a typical laptop so we are not talking ultra high performance.

If you were a chip manufacturer and could divert production to car chips from computers, where costs would be more easily absorbed, why wouldn't you? The reality is that the production lines and IP are so specific it would take a long time to shift production. 

All bubbles originate from a plausible root cause. The petrol "crisis" was apparently caused by a lack of lorry drivers. Do we have more lorry drivers now or just less panic buying.

Therascal

Can not wait unitl the price and performance of these types of cars come down in price.

JKenH

Sustainable synthetic carbon based fuels for transport

Excellent policy briefing paper from the Royal Society. It’s one of the few articles I have managed to find that one might reasonably regard as independent.

The outlook for synthetic fuels is not that promising it seems, the main issue being the availability of cheap renewable energy which looks likely to prevent production on a scale that makes it viable even for aviation fuel. The second big issue is the capital cost for the plant to produce the sheer volumes that would be required.

There is a comparison of its efficiency in terms of % of conversion of renewable power coming in at 13% compared to 26% for HFC and 69% for electric car. I am speculating that 13%, while low, is probably of a similar order in terms of energy efficiency to a petrol engine measured on a well to wheel basis. That therefore in my mind should not be a reason to give up on synthetic fuel given the advantages that liquid fuel has in terms of energy density which is critical in many applications. Private cars probably aren’t top of that list and given the problems of scaling up manufacture I would concede not the best use of resources even if the prices of €1-1.4 or €2/litre mentioned in this report are achievable. 

Now some of you, the less charitable ones, will be rushing to say I told you so but next time, perhaps, if you do want to get a point across to me please use a reliable source such as this rather than one which is overtly campaigning in support of your own point of view. 

https://royalsociety.org/-/media/policy/projects/synthetic-fuels/synthetic-fuels-briefing.pdf

Grumpy_chap

Martyn1981 said:

Cracking numbers for the UK BEV market too in Nov, getting close to 1/5th of all sales, and double Nov 2020.

UK Plugin EV Share Hits Record 28.1% In November & Diesel At Just 5%

JKenH said:

Battery EV uptake doubles, but new car market remains well adrift of pre-pandemic levels

2nd_time_buyer said:

I think the chip shortage is being used as a catch-all for lots of supply issues in the car sector. However, it is also a good bargaining chip: 

"You can cancel if you want but we can sell your new car to someone else with no issue."

Supply is short, because the chips are being bought as a commodity and are being horded. The chips that are used in cars are very specific so the excuse of increased demand for computers during COVID is difficult to believe. If it was true, then I would imagine a £30k car would get presence over a £300 laptop (which are still readily available).  

It may suit the manufactures to have lower sales with increased profit margins whilst they transition to BEVs. So I wouldn't be surprised if they continue to blame chip shortage for as long as possible. 

All the reports about the mix of vehicles sold have to be considered with caution given that supply of new cars is currently constrained and total sales are supply-limited not demand-limited.

It could be chips, or if it were not that, whatever the next tight supply item is in the automotive chain.

I have said before in this thread, and been challenged on it, that the manufacturer would favour more expensive cars over cheaper ones if they cannot build them all (a less-extreme version of the car - laptop analogy used above).  EV's tend to be more expensive, so get preferential chip supply because of their retail price point, not because the manufacturers are driving EV for any conscientious reason.

As much as the low supply of cars overall is meaning that percentage EV rises (which we in this thread are in favour of), I wonder what it does to the mix of ICE cars.  My reference point is the local dealer, of a premium brand, with very low stock levels - as of this morning they have 17 "used" cars in stock, all 21 - 71 plate and notional mileage.  Of the 17-cars, three are under £30k while ten are over £45k.  These over £45k cars are big off-road style inefficient 35 mpg polluting petrol-guzzlers.

There is nothing to say that the local dealer I observe is representative, but I can see that it very well could be.  That could well mean that we have a glut of cars at the extreme ends - EVs or gas-guzzlers - and far fewer "standard" cars.  If that is true, the high proportion of gas-guzzlers is likely compensation for the increased sales of EV's in terms of environmental impact.

Martyn1981

Got to admit that I also think that the chip shortage is being used to hide a part of the drop in sales, but that's my gut feeling, so I can't back it up.

I did hear a good argument that the chips used in BEV's may be of a newer and more specialised design, v's older chips used in ICEV's and perhaps more common due to the purchase of electrical components from parts suppliers, rather than an integrated internal supply line. This theory went on to suggest that having shutdown some of the older lines (when the legacy companies reduced orders) to concentrate on newer chips for computers, BEV's etc, some manufacturers may be reluctant to build the older ones if they are unable to produce all of the types at the same time.

That argument sounded reasonable to me, but I know nothing, and I can also see lots of holes in it, so it may have legs or be complete BS.

TBH even if ICEV demand has fallen off a bit more, it's probably a good thing to hide that difference behind a chip shortage (or anything else) since ironically, it's quite important that faith in ICEV's doesn't collapse yet, since BEV supply can't ramp fast enough, and a collapse in ICEV sales (at the extreme end of the possibilities) would remove the revenue stream needed by the legacy companies to fund the BEV transition. Quite ironic really, and takes us back to the Osborne Effect, where the specs put out by Osborne Computers for their future Osborne 2 model were too good, and sales of their Osborne 1 collapsed as people put off buying and decided to wait for the superior product instead, this decimated Osborne's revenue stream and they went bust.

2nd_time_buyer

My hunch is that the "chip shortage" will speed up the transition to BEV. Simply because there are not the bargains for either new or second hand ICE vehicles to make them competitive.