[rockdoc123]

http://www.edmunds.com/about/press/hybr ... dscom.html

According to Edmunds.com, about 22 percent of people who have traded in their hybrids and EVs in 2015 bought a new SUV. The number represents a sharp increase from 18.8 percent last year, and it is nearly double the rate of 11.9 percent just three years ago. Overall, only 45 percent of this year's hybrid and EV trade-ins have gone toward the purchase of another alternative fuel vehicle, down from just over 60 percent in 2012. Never before have loyalty rates for alt-fuel vehicles fallen below 50 percent.

I guess either this is a product of lower gasoline prices or alternatively the notion that the alt-fuel vehicles are crap.

[Shaved Monkey]

Price of fuel
Price of EVs
Lack of fear of petrol price rises.

[dolanbaker]

Being wealthy enough not to care about the price of fuel.

[Pops]

We are a fickle bunch.

Upon returning to Cali I have been amazed at the number of jacked-up 4x4 pickups, it is a big thing, much bigger than I remember 10 years ago. I'm not talking work trucks or firewood getters, these are brand new $40-60k trucks, daily coffee cup haulers lifted so high the bed is of no practical use and with such pretty paint to take them off road would be a crime.

That, in a local where the only excuse to shift the transfer case is drinking so much coffee, when you peed on the tire you wound up stuck.


But, high-line EVs in the $30k-$100K range are not the disruptor...

If Tesla won’t disrupt the industry, what could? Bartman’s research points to the “neighborhood electric vehicle”—a low-speed vehicle that resembles a souped-up golf cart. NEVs are used by security on university campuses, for transportation in retirement communities, and for delivery in cities. They cost just a few thousand dollars and are cheap to operate and easy to park. And their manufacturers are starting to add features found in conventional cars. “Disruptive theory is all about the disrupter being better suited for people who use it early on and then improving over time,” Bartman says. Particularly in the developing world, NEVs could eventually be what PCs were to minicomputers or what desktop copiers were to giant Xerox machines. Starting at the bottom still makes strategic sense.

https://hbr.org/2015/05/teslas-not-as-d ... ight-think

There are literally hundreds of low-speed electric vehicle manufacturers in China and they manufactured over 200,000 four-wheel low-speed EVs in 2013. This low-speed electric vehicle revolution has put over half a million EVs on the roads in China while nobody was looking. Even in China, most people don't realize how invasive these vehicles have become or how powerful the low-speed EV industry in China has become.

The cheapest low-speed EVs sell for $2,000 while a top-of-the-line vehicle can sell for $12,000. Luxury models include power steering, power brakes, heating and air conditioning. Keep in mind that a cheap new gasoline automobile sells for only $5,000 in China. Low-speed EVs in China are usually based on a welded steel frame with a stamped steel body on top. These vehicles combine automobile design practices from the 1930's with modern manufacturing processes to produce the cheapest electric vehicles in the world. Bodies are stamped using low-cost, low-volume stamping dies and then cut using three-dimensional laser cutting robots.

http://www.autoblog.com/2014/07/25/a-wi ... n/#image-5

[dinopello]

Hybrid vehicle sales around here in northern Virginia and to some extent in southside had been goosed in the early 2000's by the hybrid exemption to the HOV lane restriction. Many people bought them just so they could ride in HOV lanes. The slug line people hated it and ultimately it was repealed because traffic on HOV became as bad as anywhere as so many people had Hybrids. Incentives work. What is the incentive to buy a big SUV ? A pickup for hauling I understand, and I understand an SUV if you are going camping a lot in the wilderness but I hate driving big cars in general. Is it just the status factor - being up higher than everyone and that feeling of power, compensating ?

[PeterEV]

Hi RockDoc,

As someone who is a proponent of EVs, I am not worried. It is the market at work. During the 70's and early 80's when the oil embargoes hit, we saw a shift to small Japanese cars made by Honda and Toyota. After the oil situation stabilized, we went back to SUVs.

What we have to keep in mind is that we have already hit "peak oil" with respect to conventional oil wells (not deep water, tight oil, polar, etc.) Exxon Mobile showed this in their recent 2015 Energy Outlook. Slide 44 of their outlook showed that peak occurring in 2005 in line with a number petrogeologists and Hubbert.

We **are** facing a liquid fuels problem as Robert Hirsch pointed out in his seminal report. He mentioned that we have to start to address the problem at least 20 years in advance. I think we are doing just that. The traction battery developers have managed to increase the amount of energy per kilogram in their labs by at least a factor of 3. A factor of 3 performance would enable a Tesla Model S to go about 800 miles on a charge or a Leaf to go 200 miles on a charge. Nissan has mentioned a 200 mile range vehicle for 2017.

Professors such as Jeff Dahn of Dalhousie University have worked out ways of evaluating battery performance without having to take months to measure that performance. Couple that with increased cycle life and the cost of the battery pack goes down. Current replacement of a Leaf pack is about $6K with a warranted number of miles at 100K. Assuming that developers can increase the energy density by a factor of 3 and cycle life stays the same, the pack cost would be roughly $2K for that 100K miles or $0.02/mile. Electricity at $0.10/kwhr can propel an EV 3 miles. So for about a nickel a mile, an EV is about half the running cost of a conventional car. Consumer Reports cites about $0.03/mile operating cost for a Leaf and about $0.11/miles for a conventional car of similar size. This is without taking battery pack replacement into consideration.

I'd like to see an orderly transition from FF to solar/battery based transportation and I hope we will see it during this century. We have Limits to Growth, overpopulation, diminishing resources, etc. facing us. We also have the Elon Musks and Jeff Dahns who innovations are helping us to transition. We'll see.

Here is a copy of graph from Slide 44 from the Exxon Mobil 2105 Energy Outlook showing conventional oil production peaking in 2005:

[Outcast_Searcher]

What is the incentive to buy a big SUV ? A pickup for hauling I understand, and I understand an SUV if you are going camping a lot in the wilderness but I hate driving big cars in general. Is it just the status factor - being up higher than everyone and that feeling of power, compensating ?

I think you've got it exactly right.

I was amazed (silly me, I keep overestimating peoples' overall intelligence) when the news came out years ago about SUV's being more of a tip risk than typical passenger cars (due to their high center of gravity). What was the reaction from the middle class and upper middle class SUV owner. Was it common sense safety concerns? Was it that perhaps the resources such beasts consumed weren't worth it if they were less safe than they'd thought? No (at least listening to commentary on channels like NPR), it was that they (get this) were concerned that other drivers might not perceive them as driving "high status" vehicles, i.e. they might not be "looked up to" as much.

Status. No wonder so many idiots will pay $50,000 to $100,000 and more for a "luxury" car. Heaven forbid if others can't see you driving around with (for example) an "L" on your car!

No wonder mere humans can't (as a whole) be bothered to save enough for retirement, much less, say, spend some money to preserve the biosphere to a reasonable degree for future generations.

[Antaris]

So how many people are they talking about, 22% of 1, 100, 1000 ???
I have driven a fully electric car for over 3 years and would by another.

[Plantagenet]

If you want an inexpensive vehicle with excellent gas mileage and is easy to park and small for city travel, but still want the capability to travel long distances you can't beat a motorcycle or a scooter.

As Asian populations get richer, the first vehicle they buy is a scooter or motorcycle. I still maintain that as US populations get poorer, eventually we'll hit Asian levels of income and scooters and motorcycles will become the only vehicle that many people will be able to afford here in the USA.


Coming soon to a town near you?

[KaiserJeep]

Although I would enjoy driving a sleek, comfortable BEV like a Tesla/Leaf/Volt/etc. I believe that for a long time to come most people will continue to have a gasoline-fuelled vehicle that is completely paid for and used only when you must travel on a highway or go a longer distance. There are plenty of these in the USA today. I have three that are all paid for, and my Wrangler is on a limited-use insurance policy, quite cheap as long as I keep the annual mileage at 3000 miles or less - and that is no problem at this time.

After retirement I think owning a BEV and a bunch of solar panels to charge it, plus at least one of the gasoline-fuelled Jeeps I have already paid for, is a good scheme. I actually think this is my best bet for local transportation in the snow and mud of rural Wisconsin:


Polaris Ranger EV plus optional cab, windshield, wiper, dump body, lights, winch, etc.

Equipped as shown, about $14,000 new. It has 25mph top speed (legal as a NEV) and 50-mile range in 2WD, 30+ miles in 4WD. The standard lead-acid flooded cells are good for at least 750 charge/discharge cycles down to 25% capacity, and cost $2K to replace. There is an available aftermarket Lithium-Ion battery and charger upgrade that costs $5K and will live for 4000+ charge/discharge cycles, while saving 300+ pounds (LI-Ion cells alone are $4k). Most of the gas-powered UTV accessories can be used, making this a versatile vehicle suitable for yard work and farm use. Given essentially "free" electricity from solar PV (because you have to have it to run your home anyway) the cost per mile should be around $0.10 for lead-acid cells and $0.06 for the Li-Ion battery. Plus an unknown amount for maintenance and repair and insurance. For comparison, my gasoline cost on the 15mpg Wrangler is $0.22/mile, at the California price of $3.299/gallon.

I may be able to use such a vehicle for 90% or more of my routine travels - which (given the low cost) is indeed disruptive technology. If the wife did not have to regularly visit every large mall in the area, it would be 100% of the routine miles. Elon Musk, eat your heart out with your $100K BEV.

http://www.utvguide.net/polaris_ranger_ev_review.htm

[dolanbaker]

If you factor in the fuel consumption to weight ratio, a motorcycle is actually quite terrible*, an electric motorbike on the other hand is a winner. Problem is the image (or lack of) they have.
Many motorbikes can only go twice as far on a litre of fuel than a small car, despite being about a quarter the weight (including rider) and crappy aerodynamics.

[rockdoc123]

I'd like to see an orderly transition from FF to solar/battery based transportation and I hope we will see it during this century. We have Limits to Growth, overpopulation, diminishing resources, etc. facing us. We also have the Elon Musks and Jeff Dahns who innovations are helping us to transition. We'll see.

I can't agree more. The issue, however, is that the amount of hydrocarbons being consumed to build an electric vehicle is large and the problem becomes that as compared to a conventional gasoline or diesel vehicle the life is limited due to the battery. Of course that will improve through time but most people live "in the now" not in the future.

I think someone also pointed out the craziness of buying these big vehicles. I'm not against the smaller SUV's, for where I live they are a practical solution to dealing with the half year of snow we normally get as well as enabling you the ability to access the best trout streams in the mountains. Today I saw something that had me shaking my head. It was one of those very huge Ford F350's but apparently the ridiculous size of that vehicle wasn't enough the owner had outfitted it with jacked up suspension (he would need a ladder to get into the cab), oversized tires, a huge power winch that had obviously never been extracted from it's neatly enclosed box, a wrap around aluminum brush guard on the front and, wonder of wonders a snorkle. When I worked in the desert in North Africa all of our Land Rovers had sand snorkles and oil packed air filters to keep the beasts running through sand storms. I have absolutely no idea why this individual thought he needed one in one of the largest cities in Canada where there has never been a sand storm. Given it was gleaming in chrome and black paint I can only think this was seen as some kind of bizarre status symbol. In that lays the problem. For most Dwight Yorkum fans (I only use him as an example of C&W) a pickup truck is part of their image...bigger the better, more tricked out the better. Given many of them aren't anymore expensive than an electric vehicle then what is the incentive for them to convert? Same with Escalades...they are a status symbol for a certain part of the population. Given they are currently a better investment than an electric vehicle when you take into account the lifespan on the battery it also seems hard to see why someone might convert.

[dashster]

There are hybrid SUVs. Someday there could be plug-in hybrid SUVs. Tesla is working on an all-electric SUV called the Model X. So wanting to drive around in a larger vehicle, while still using more energy, should be getting more efficient in the future.

[KaiserJeep]

Not that anybody cares about saving energy. Not that a $100K Tesla is a transformational vehicle or a disruptive technology. I believe that those were the main points in this thread. One person driving an SUV which could carry six or seven people is just as inappropriate whether that SUV is powered by an oil-based fuel as is a Chevy Suburban, or dirty coal as is a Tesla.

As a matter of fact I rented a Chevy Suburban last vacation I took. It was a flex-fuel vehicle that got 29mpg on E85 "corn fuel". I would posit that it is less harmful to the environment than is a Tesla. Recall that an electric car is just a movable consumer of whatever form of energy mix is on the power grid when it is charged.

[hvacman]

This is a misleading headline and article. We at the peak oil forums should be very familiar with the now-common practice by MSM writers/editors of creating misleading headlines, articles, and/or conclusions by mixing up facts. One example is blending crude oil statistics with NGL's and then claiming very exaggerated US oil production levels. This is a similarly-manipulated article. Hybrid sales are off. SUV sales are up. More people are trading in their hybrids for other types of vehicles, including SUV's. Those are facts. But what isn't mentioned in the article is that EV sales are up even as gas prices drop, and the most common trade-in for a new EV is also a hybrid. This article, though, blends hybrid and EV sales and trade-ins as a single statistic, then uses "electric cars" in the headline, when it should have been "hybrids". This is lying through verbal and statistical mis-direction that only someone pretty savvy about the whole EV/hybrid scene would pick up.

Now more than ever, we must be ever-diligent in how we read articles.

[Timo]

I've always though that the Chevy Subdivision was way over-engineered. You need a step ladder just to get into that sucker, and the on-line GPS system only takes you for loops around every nearby culdesac. But MY! What a view from up there! They're actually forbidden around airports by the FAA.

Also, the very notion that owner loyalty to electrics is pure bunk, disproven by every single manufacturer of electric vehicles. EV owners LOVE their cars. Sure, there are some wrinkles to work out, but the downsides pale in comparison to the benefits. Edmunds is still clinging to the world of Big Oil because that's what gave them their worldly significance to begin with. An oil-based economy is what they know, and they will defend it, and discredit any alternatives to it as long as they exist.

[PeterEV]

Hi Doc,

I was reading Tom Whipple's Twice weekly piece on Resilience.org (ref. http://www.resilience.org/stories/2015- ... tes-apr-23) In this week's piece he had this paragraph:

Industry leaders are warning that the $114 billion cut in capital expenditures for producing new oil is likely to end up in lower production and much higher prices in the years ahead as the demand for oil continues to grow. Industry executives say that as soon as prices get back to $80-90 a barrel, investment will begin to increase capital expenditures again.

This is like the 70's and 80's all over again but where the embargoing factor is not the Saudis nor the Iranians but cost. In order to invest increasing amounts of capital and not see as much return means that the cost per unit of output has to go up. This will drive the cost of everything up including the cost of EVs and SUVs.

I think it is extremely short sighted to buy an SUV just because you can afford the gasoline. It won't be long before demand over takes supply again unless the world melts down financially ( and that is a possibility). What Gail Tverberg says on her "Our Finite World blog (ref. http://ourfiniteworld.com/) is scary.

The biblical verse: "The meek shall inherit the earth." kept on returning to mind. I finally figured it out. The meek are those that live within their means. If they earn $100 per week, they spend $90 and save $10. At the end of the year, they have saved $520 plus interest. Those that do the opposite and spend $110 dollars, end up with debt of $520 plus a lot more cost in interest. The meek are the ones who end up with the money and "purchase the earth". Okay okay it is a little dorky but I can live with that concept.

I'm on a similar page to Kaiser and his Jeep, I keep my cars for 16+ years unless I physically can not (e.g., wrecked, **really need** something else, it's a lemon, etc.). I could go into big debt and purchase a Tesla or little debt and purchase a Leaf or Golf or Volt. I'm not ready yet but now may be the time as gasoline prices are low and demand has slacken. I could also wait to see if the 200 mile Leaf or $35K Tesla Model E with 200 mile range materialize in 2017 (or delayed to 20xx).

The initial cost of the Tesla pack was based on a prototyped pack developed by AC Propulsion for their tZero. The 6831 laptop batteries were hand assembled into modules and the modules were assembled into the car for an estimated pack cost of $155K. This was around the mid 1990's. Tesla worked with AC Propulsion and the result was the Tesla Roadster. It was about 5 to 10 years ago when Tesla offered to sell Th!nk of Norway their pack and electronics for Tesla's cost of $25K with a mild boost in efficiency and range over the tZero. So the costs have come down. Musk's battery plant producing packs with 3 times the range will be a real game changer.

The Leaf pack is rated at 24 kwhrs and the Tesla big pack is rated at 85 kwhrs; a factor difference of about 3.54. The replacement cost of a Leaf pack is $6K which would equate to about $21K for a Tesla pack without the electronics. I understand Tesla charges $40K for a replacement pack but considering they offer "free" high speed charging along the US Interstates, it's understandable due to cost of land, pavement, equipment, and electricity costs.

At this point (around 2017), an electric pickup truck could have a range of 100 to 130 miles with a $21K pack that lasts 300K miles. Might make it enticing for plumbers, electricians, roofers, carpenters and other trades people to try out.

I hope we can have a "sea change" in thought and face our situation "meekly".


If we know that oil in the future is going to be more costly with respect to average salaries and wages, what should we be doing as individuals? cities and towns? and as a country? Turn off the TV and put down the ear buds. Read and learn. If the sun shines, make electricity with PV and generate heat. Learn to ride a bike? Plant a garden? Pump ourselves up with skills and knowledge so that we will be useful to one another. Maybe learn to create an EV using a surplus pack (although the professionals will likely do a better job)? Elect people who show some sense of responsibility and insight (e.g., Elizabeth Warren?????) as opposed to political hacks who feed us what we want to hear.

[KaiserJeep]

I live fairly close to Tesla manufacturing in nearby Fremont (near the site of the infamous Solyndra plant). It is a modern factory in all respects, including the same dependencies and vulnerabilities. For example if Elon Musk had to manufacture those Tesla vehicles using only renewable energy and without a heavy dependence on petrochemicals and oil-derived plastics, then the vehicle would cost over $1M, not $100K.

Meanwhile Musk is building vehicles with significant amounts of petrochemicals, plastics, and manufacturing same with a mix of primarily oil-and-gas derived electricity.

In the post oil peak world, we have to engineer the entire lifecycle of a product like a vehicle to be oil-free, including manufacturing, useful life, and end-of-life recycling. This is many times as complex as simply engineering an effective BEV.

[PeterEV]

Hi Kaiser,

I don't doubt that vehicles in the future will be more expensive due to the increase in petroleum product costs. While at today's cost and using today's materials, the cost will go up increasingly. On the other hand, the cost of battery packs has come down and it appears that we will be witnessing some major breakthroughs in battery energy density soon. Also, the developers are working to use other materials to make the batteries themselves out of more commonly available elements and materials. A pack with a range of 800 miles with 5,000 cycle life for $21K is roughly 4 million miles on the pack or about 1/2 cent per mile. If we drive 10K a year for 60 years, that's 600K miles of driving.

The other part of the development will likely be more efficient PV arrays where electricity is stored in those batteries. We are still at around 15% efficiency for common PV cells.

I ascribe to Limits to Growth but I also see the ingenuity of man tapering some of the more dire predictions. I tend to be hopeful but I know that costs go up with scarcity.

We still need to move goods and services around and if FF are more expensive, BEVs will likely be utilized especially if batteries can be made cheaply and recharged using more efficient solar arrays.

[dashster]

One of the keys to dealing with the "Limits to Growth" is dealing with the worst growth of all - population growth. At this point, the powers that be in the United States and their followers in the masses, still see population growth as part of the solution. This is problematic. I don't think that population growth will be seen as a problem until at least one, and probably two, of the fossil fuels peaks in production. But, if the pessimists are right, that isn't that far away.