France Sees 10.6% EV Market Share In September — 4× Growth Year On Year

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

https://cleantechnica.com/2020/10/03/france-sees-10-6-ev-market-share-in-september-4x-growth-year-on-year/

[markslawson + 1,042]

As always, anyone familiar with the alleged sales success of EVs will look to see what incentives are being offered. This from Automotive News Europe 

"France is setting aside more than 1.3 billion (Euros) of the sum for incentives. The incentives will bring down the price of a battery-electric vehicle by nearly 40 percent in some cases.

"For example, a Renault Zoe that costs 32,000 euros would be 20,000 euros" (about US$23,500 - the Zoe is by far the most popular of the EV models) "under the most generous case, in which the owner of an older diesel car receives a bonus of 5,000 euros for scrapping it and 7,000 euros toward buying a new electric vehicle."

You will also noted that the actual market share of pure EVs is 5.9 per cent.. PHEV stands for plug in hybrid electric vehicle. The 1.3 billion figure is part of an $8 billion rescue package for the French car industry which is ailing.  

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

On 10/3/2020 at 6:33 PM, markslawson said:

As always, anyone familiar with the alleged sales success of EVs will look to see what incentives are being offered. This from Automotive News Europe 

"France is setting aside more than 1.3 billion (Euros) of the sum for incentives. The incentives will bring down the price of a battery-electric vehicle by nearly 40 percent in some cases.

"For example, a Renault Zoe that costs 32,000 euros would be 20,000 euros" (about US$23,500 - the Zoe is by far the most popular of the EV models) "under the most generous case, in which the owner of an older diesel car receives a bonus of 5,000 euros for scrapping it and 7,000 euros toward buying a new electric vehicle."

You will also noted that the actual market share of pure EVs is 5.9 per cent.. PHEV stands for plug in hybrid electric vehicle. The 1.3 billion figure is part of an $8 billion rescue package for the French car industry which is ailing.  

This is all correct AFAIK, and it's a valid point. However, if our concern is the future of oil demand, I would make additional points:

1) A PHEV does contain an ICE, but it still reduces liquid fuel consumption by 50-90%. So your effective EV market share is still around 8-10%

2) On one hand, governments are offering incentives. On the other hand, there's resistance to new technology, and the current generation of EVs are primitive first attempts. I've seen the technology roadmaps for EVs; they'll reach price parity with ICEs in 3-5 years. By that point, people will also recognize them as the more convenient, higher quality, more reliable option.

3) The current/upcoming generation of ICEs is 20-40% more efficient than the 12+ year old ICEs they're replacing.

4) The world as a whole - and Europe in particular - is in the process of modernizing rail lines, electrifying rail lines, and increasing rail service frequency. We'll see at least some modal shift.

5) Autonomous EVs will happen. When they do, we'll see taxi services that are cheaper than personal vehicle ownership. That will mean commercial EVs running 24/7, each of which replaces 5-10 personal vehicles. Also, these autonomous taxis need not reach price parity with ICEs because companies understand total lifecycle costs.

6) Demographic decline in developed nations will decrease demand for transportation.

If you look at transportation oil demand as a snapshot at the current time, it's difficult to build a case for EV-driven oil demand destruction. However, if we expand our dataset to the previous 15 years and then look ahead to the next 5-10 years, we see a different picture: all of the risk points to lower oil demand.

The things I've mentioned here are just the tip of the iceberg. I like to browse for new information, if only to sate my curiosity. Every industry journal I read, every application of oil, every R&D effort - everything - points toward lower oil demand. Oil demand won't be affected by the one or two silver bullets we keep discussing, but the thousands of incremental technologies in the pipeline will decimate it.

 

[Rob Kramer + 696]

 @BenFranklin'sSpectacles

"If you look at transportation oil demand as a snapshot at the current time, it's difficult to build a case for EV-driven oil demand destruction. However, if we expand our dataset to the previous 15 years and then look ahead to the next 5-10 years, we see a different picture: all of the risk points to lower oil demand."

- if you look at growing demand from developing countries and expand your data set back 15 years and forward 15 years you'll see a different picture: all of the risk points to higher oil demand. India has like 33 vehicles per 1000 people vs US at 860ish. India has 300M people coming down the tube in population growth. Dont forget Even electric cars at today's generation is 45% nat gas during the summer (and that's without total demand growing from EVs) so you take from the left hand to give to the right. 

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

1 hour ago, Rob Kramer said:

 @BenFranklin'sSpectacles

"If you look at transportation oil demand as a snapshot at the current time, it's difficult to build a case for EV-driven oil demand destruction. However, if we expand our dataset to the previous 15 years and then look ahead to the next 5-10 years, we see a different picture: all of the risk points to lower oil demand."

- if you look at growing demand from developing countries and expand your data set back 15 years and forward 15 years you'll see a different picture: all of the risk points to higher oil demand. India has like 33 vehicles per 1000 people vs US at 860ish. India has 300M people coming down the tube in population growth. Dont forget Even electric cars at today's generation is 45% nat gas during the summer (and that's without total demand growing from EVs) so you take from the left hand to give to the right. 

Update: for the purposes of this discussion, I'm viewing "oil" and "natural gas" as separate products. NG consumption will increase even as oil decreases because these have significantly different uses. Their overlap is minor.

I've been to third world countries; I'm not optimistic about their continued growth. They do well with natural resource extraction provided there are enough foreigners to run the operations, but they'll never excel in advanced industries. Meanwhile, the US military dominance that made all this growth possible is coming to an end. Who will keep the trade lanes open once we step away?  No one.

Then there's the Middle East, whose consumption is based entirely on oil wealth. Oil prices will remain low even as the Middle East loses its market share. Their economic "growth" will falter. We may even see them collapse into war and destitution, at which point their consumption will be nil.

Then there's progress toward the "circular economy". Countries like Germany already "mine" their waste products, carefully husbanding raw materials. Every other developed nation - including the US - will follow suit. Sure, you have to mine the lithium, the graphite, the aluminum, the REEs - but once you have them, you have them. That shifts the world's wealth away from poor nations towards developed nations.

That's assuming we continue to tolerate the headache of policing 3rd world nations, dealing with their corruption, securing supply lines, etc. There are already efforts to mine domestically using new extraction technologies and advanced automation. In many cases, we don't actually need the 3rd world, and it may happen that they cease being convenient to us altogether. When that happens, their economies collapse.

The growth you describe is a nigh-impossible, best case scenario for poor nations. The proportion of the world's wealth escaping to 3rd world countries will decline, and their hope for growth will decline with it. Meanwhile, any nation capable of advanced technology will quickly electrify.

I should also mention that all this "growth" is built on a mountain of unsustainable debt. When that house of cards falls, ushering in the next global depression, poor nations will be wiped out.  To see what that looks like, note that Covid alone threatens to cast 150 million people into extreme poverty. Most of those come from the Middle-income countries you're expecting to drive consumption.

Details matter. 

Edited October 19, 2020 by BenFranklin'sSpectacles
Added a thought.

[Rob Kramer + 696]

On 10/3/2020 at 3:29 PM, Jay McKinsey said:

https://cleantechnica.com/2020/10/03/france-sees-10-6-ev-market-share-in-september-4x-growth-year-on-year/

Smaller cars. Higher fuel prices. More emissions laws. Higher Gov Incentives.  We know EV sales will grow to 2025 as manufacturing ramps up from zero. Until Gov goes broke on incentives. For countries that have alot of Electricity and little fossil fuels they may keep the energy costs in country and that may offset losses on fuel tax. I don't know much about Europe/ Electricity energy per country.  But youd have to get consumers to buy local products (vehicles and energy) to offset the tax . In Canada the 15k$/15years a vehicle is on the road so 1k$/yr. Electricity isnt taxed tho. So in Canada it wouldnt be possible also we can sell the energy we can consume.  

Edited October 19, 2020 by Rob Kramer
Rushed reply family calls - incomplete

[markslawson + 1,042]

9 hours ago, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

Autonomous EVs will happen. When they do, we'll see taxi services that are cheaper than personal vehicle ownership. That will mean commercial EVs running 24/7, each of which replaces 5-10 personal vehicles. Also, these autonomous taxis need not reach price parity with ICEs because companies understand total lifecycle costs.

I won't argue with much of what you said but there is, as matters stand, no indication of any mass shift in consumer preferences for EVs. At present the trade of is - government incentives/subsidies = sales, no government incentives = no sales. A case in point is Norway which has achieved major sales of EVs in exchange for government incentives worth an estimated half the cost of the car. At the other end is Australia where there are no incentives at all and sales remain tiny. Commentators have talked themselves hoarse about whole of life costs, but the point remains that governments have to buy market share for EVs. (Besides the consumer incentives, there are also manufacturer incentives involving quotas on emissions.) To get to these cheaper prices for EVs taxpayers have to pay a lot more and keep on paying - there is no indication that EV buyers won't revert to petrol once the incentives are taken away.

Your point about autonomous taxis I quoted above is interesting, however. Its not really an EV thing. ICEs can also be autonomous. But certainly it would be more EV friendly. Considering the growth of uber and the like its certainly a distinct possibility. 

[Rob Kramer + 696]

9 hours ago, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

Update: for the purposes of this discussion, I'm viewing "oil" and "natural gas" as separate products. NG consumption will increase even as oil decreases because these have significantly different uses. Their overlap is minor.

I've been to third world countries; I'm not optimistic about their continued growth. They do well with natural resource extraction provided there are enough foreigners to run the operations, but they'll never excel in advanced industries. Meanwhile, the US military dominance that made all this growth possible is coming to an end. Who will keep the trade lanes open once we step away?  No one.

Then there's the Middle East, whose consumption is based entirely on oil wealth. Oil prices will remain low even as the Middle East loses its market share. Their economic "growth" will falter. We may even see them collapse into war and destitution, at which point their consumption will be nil.

Then there's progress toward the "circular economy". Countries like Germany already "mine" their waste products, carefully husbanding raw materials. Every other developed nation - including the US - will follow suit. Sure, you have to mine the lithium, the graphite, the aluminum, the REEs - but once you have them, you have them. That shifts the world's wealth away from poor nations towards developed nations.

That's assuming we continue to tolerate the headache of policing 3rd world nations, dealing with their corruption, securing supply lines, etc. There are already efforts to mine domestically using new extraction technologies and advanced automation. In many cases, we don't actually need the 3rd world, and it may happen that they cease being convenient to us altogether. When that happens, their economies collapse.

The growth you describe is a nigh-impossible, best case scenario for poor nations. The proportion of the world's wealth escaping to 3rd world countries will decline, and their hope for growth will decline with it. Meanwhile, any nation capable of advanced technology will quickly electrify.

I should also mention that all this "growth" is built on a mountain of unsustainable debt. When that house of cards falls, ushering in the next global depression, poor nations will be wiped out.  To see what that looks like, note that Covid alone threatens to cast 150 million people into extreme poverty. Most of those come from the Middle-income countries you're expecting to drive consumption.

Details matter. 

Tell that to TaTa . 

[Rob Kramer + 696]

2 hours ago, markslawson said:

I won't argue with much of what you said but there is, as matters stand, no indication of any mass shift in consumer preferences for EVs. At present the trade of is - government incentives/subsidies = sales, no government incentives = no sales. A case in point is Norway which has achieved major sales of EVs in exchange for government incentives worth an estimated half the cost of the car. At the other end is Australia where there are no incentives at all and sales remain tiny. Commentators have talked themselves hoarse about whole of life costs, but the point remains that governments have to buy market share for EVs. (Besides the consumer incentives, there are also manufacturer incentives involving quotas on emissions.) To get to these cheaper prices for EVs taxpayers have to pay a lot more and keep on paying - there is no indication that EV buyers won't revert to petrol once the incentives are taken away.

Your point about autonomous taxis I quoted above is interesting, however. Its not really an EV thing. ICEs can also be autonomous. But certainly it would be more EV friendly. Considering the growth of uber and the like its certainly a distinct possibility. 

I dont agree . We have taxi and uber's.  India packs 10 people on a 1 seater motorcycle.  North America unpacks one suit into a 9 seater suburban.  I dont see how a 4 seater car gets 5-10people to different jobs and houses all on time. Another day dream is all. At Christmas are 5-10 traveling families gonna pack into one vehicle? If anything there will be more cars heavier traffic and slower non speeding vehicles slowing down pedal to the metal drivers who dont care for self driving or cant afford. It's all a dream.

[Bob D + 562]

Oui  Oui.  Give me a free EV and I'll drive one too??

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

13 hours ago, markslawson said:

I won't argue with much of what you said but there is, as matters stand, no indication of any mass shift in consumer preferences for EVs. At present the trade of is - government incentives/subsidies = sales, no government incentives = no sales. A case in point is Norway which has achieved major sales of EVs in exchange for government incentives worth an estimated half the cost of the car. At the other end is Australia where there are no incentives at all and sales remain tiny. Commentators have talked themselves hoarse about whole of life costs, but the point remains that governments have to buy market share for EVs. (Besides the consumer incentives, there are also manufacturer incentives involving quotas on emissions.) To get to these cheaper prices for EVs taxpayers have to pay a lot more and keep on paying - there is no indication that EV buyers won't revert to petrol once the incentives are taken away.

Your point about autonomous taxis I quoted above is interesting, however. Its not really an EV thing. ICEs can also be autonomous. But certainly it would be more EV friendly. Considering the growth of uber and the like its certainly a distinct possibility. 

You're looking at a snapshot in time when you should be looking at an aggregate of data. Consider the following:
1) EVs will be cheaper than ICEs in a few years.
2) Consumers in developed nations have indicated that they will purchase EVs when the price is right, which will happen in 3-5 years.
3) Autonomous vehicles are very much an EV phenomenon for two reasons:
     a) They're cheaper. Per my previous post, commercial vehicle operators understand lifecycle costs.
     b) They require less human intervention for fueling and maintenance.

Details matter.

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

12 hours ago, Rob Kramer said:

Tell that to TaTa . 

Who could stand against such a reasoned response? Truly your rhetoric stands alone.

[Rob Kramer + 696]

1 hour ago, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

Who could stand against such a reasoned response? Truly your rhetoric stands alone.

Yes I'm sure your paragraph of logic defies the 5th largest car company in the world. ... dream on. 

Possibly the worst recession since the 30s and a K shaped recovery according to experts where only the rich stay above the problem.  

The only reason car companies make electric cars is because subsidies and taxes and credits. There not profitable to produce sell or repair. Reality will hit them when the Government candy stops raining. And that will happen at a point of no return . Then a bail out  (oh what a surprise) . Who knew pointlessly re inventing over and over would sap all profits. 

[Rob Kramer + 696]

23 hours ago, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

That's assuming we continue to tolerate the headache of policing 3rd world nations, dealing with their corruption, securing supply lines, etc. There are already efforts to mine domestically using new extraction technologies and advanced automation. In many cases, we don't actually need the 3rd world, and it may happen that they cease being convenient to us altogether. When that happens, their economies collapse.

The growth you describe is a nigh-impossible, best case scenario for poor nations. The proportion of the world's wealth escaping to 3rd world countries will decline, and their hope for growth will decline with it. Meanwhile, any nation capable of advanced technology will quickly electrify.

I should also mention that all this "growth" is built on a mountain of unsustainable debt. When that house of cards falls, ushering in the next global depression, poor nations will be wiped out.  To see what that looks like, note that Covid alone threatens to cast 150 million people into extreme poverty. Most of those come from the Middle-income countries you're expecting to drive consumption.

Details matter. 

Do all greenies share your love of humanity and making the world a better place? 

So covid will kill the poor and remove their wealth.  - sounds aligned to your green policy

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

29 minutes ago, Rob Kramer said:

Do all greenies share your love of humanity and making the world a better place? 

So covid will kill the poor and remove their wealth.  - sounds aligned to your green policy

Not sure where you got the idea that I'm a greenie - or that I have a particular love for humanity. I'm just pointing out the obvious.

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

39 minutes ago, Rob Kramer said:

Yes I'm sure your paragraph of logic defies the 5th largest car company in the world. ... dream on.

I could recite a litany of large companies that failed miserably. Do you have a better argument?

Also, did you bother looking at what Tata is doing?
https://www.thenewsminute.com/article/tata-group-building-electric-vehicle-ecosystem-leveraging-its-group-companies-117067

https://m.economictimes.com/industry/auto/auto-news/tata-motors-to-soon-have-half-a-dozen-evs/articleshow/73513683.cms

If you're going to spout off, at least do a cursory search so you can pretend you know what you're talking about.

 

41 minutes ago, Rob Kramer said:

The only reason car companies make electric cars is because subsidies and taxes and credits. There not profitable to produce sell or repair. Reality will hit them when the Government candy stops raining. And that will happen at a point of no return . Then a bail out  (oh what a surprise) . Who knew pointlessly re inventing over and over would sap all profits. 

This is the business view. What you lack is the engineering view, which includes the decades of research, development, testing, and build-out necessary to implement a technology. I.e. your view is blind to what's coming down the pipe.

It's instructive to study the R&D process for automobiles. When a company like VW announces a product, that product has already been through an extensive R&D process, which means the technology is already 5-10 years old. The engineers know exactly what's coming 5-10 years from now because they're the ones making it happen. Meanwhile, the business analysts can only jump at press releases. Business analysts and investors typically have no clue what's actually driving companies.

More on that R&D process. Before you commercialize a technology at large scale, it behooves you to run a demonstration. We saw this clearly with the hybrid Prius, which Toyota sold at a loss for several years while working out bugs and driving down costs. Then it became a major profit center. Then they started transferring the technology to other models. Today's BEVs are equivalent to the first Prii: first crude attempts. Their purpose is not to make a profit; they exist to trial new technologies, work out bugs, figure out how to drive down costs, train a cohort of engineers, collect a statistically significant sample of performance data, etc. All of this is necessary, and all of it requires going through the full process of producing a vehicle. If you'd bothered to study vehicle development, you'd know that. Even just listening to Tesla's roadmap would tell you that. Or you could have listened to an industry expert's opinion. There were any number of resources available to you; you apparently couldn't be arsed to look at them.

More on industry/government collaboration. The governments setting ICE phase-out dates are usually not telling industry what to do; they're signaling to industry what's inevitably going to happen so those industries can prepare. Creating a legal phase-out date gives CEOs the excuse they need to make appropriate investments. I.e. the phase-out date negates the objections of ignorant investors, thus preventing the eventual collapse of the company when it's caught unprepared.  For an interesting case study, read about the collapse of the US tire industry when Michelin introduced radial tires.

Then there are grants for small numbers of commercial EVs, such as buses. Governments provide these as a cheap way to avoid chicken-and-egg situations. E.g. local municipalities can't afford to test electric buses, they can't introduce them at scale without testing, and bus manufacturers can't do all the things I mentioned above without some orders. State and federal governments have much to gain from electric buses, so they throw in enough money to jump-start the process. If the new technology works out, large orders follow automatically. If the new technology proves impractical, the idea is abandoned. Grants are a catalyst - not a permanent support. Is that the right thing to do? I'm not going there; debating politics isn't the purpose of this discussion. I'm merely pointing out that that's what was done, and it has successfully catalyzed commercial EV sales.

Here's what I know about EVs: their total life cycle costs are already lower for most commercial vehicles and select non-commercial applications. They'll achieve purchase cost parity with ICEs in 3-5 years. EV technology provides higher performance, greater reliability, and greater convenience than ICEs. Countries that import oil, representing more than half of oil consumption, have a powerful incentive to move to EVs. Commercial vehicle operators are already partnering with EV startups and placing large orders. Traditional automotive manufacturers - even those initially resistant to EVs - are rapidly shifting to EVs. Armies of engineers are being hired and factories are being retooled, signaling that companies expect to invest in EVs for decades to come. If you look at what the industry is doing, all of the data suggests that EVs will quickly dominate.

Five years ago, I would have said EVs are possible, but may be relegated to a niche. Today, after seeing what's coming down the R&D pipeline, I think you'd have to have your head in the sand to question them.

[Rob Kramer + 696]

40 minutes ago, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

I could recite a litany of large companies that failed miserably. Do you have a better argument?

Also, did you bother looking at what Tata is doing?
https://www.thenewsminute.com/article/tata-group-building-electric-vehicle-ecosystem-leveraging-its-group-companies-117067

https://m.economictimes.com/industry/auto/auto-news/tata-motors-to-soon-have-half-a-dozen-evs/articleshow/73513683.cms

If you're going to spout off, at least do a cursory search so you can pretend you know what you're talking about.

 

This is the business view. What you lack is the engineering view, which includes the decades of research, development, testing, and build-out necessary to implement a technology. I.e. your view is blind to what's coming down the pipe.

It's instructive to study the R&D process for automobiles. When a company like VW announces a product, that product has already been through an extensive R&D process, which means the technology is already 5-10 years old. The engineers know exactly what's coming 5-10 years from now because they're the ones making it happen. Meanwhile, the business analysts can only jump at press releases. Business analysts and investors typically have no clue what's actually driving companies.

More on that R&D process. Before you commercialize a technology at large scale, it behooves you to run a demonstration. We saw this clearly with the hybrid Prius, which Toyota sold at a loss for several years while working out bugs and driving down costs. Then it became a major profit center. Then they started transferring the technology to other models. Today's BEVs are equivalent to the first Prii: first crude attempts. Their purpose is not to make a profit; they exist to trial new technologies, work out bugs, figure out how to drive down costs, train a cohort of engineers, collect a statistically significant sample of performance data, etc. All of this is necessary, and all of it requires going through the full process of producing a vehicle. If you'd bothered to study vehicle development, you'd know that. Even just listening to Tesla's roadmap would tell you that. Or you could have listened to an industry expert's opinion. There were any number of resources available to you; you apparently couldn't be arsed to look at them.

More on industry/government collaboration. The governments setting ICE phase-out dates are usually not telling industry what to do; they're signaling to industry what's inevitably going to happen so those industries can prepare. Creating a legal phase-out date gives CEOs the excuse they need to make appropriate investments. I.e. the phase-out date negates the objections of ignorant investors, thus preventing the eventual collapse of the company when it's caught unprepared.  For an interesting case study, read about the collapse of the US tire industry when Michelin introduced radial tires.

Then there are grants for small numbers of commercial EVs, such as buses. Governments provide these as a cheap way to avoid chicken-and-egg situations. E.g. local municipalities can't afford to test electric buses, they can't introduce them at scale without testing, and bus manufacturers can't do all the things I mentioned above without some orders. State and federal governments have much to gain from electric buses, so they throw in enough money to jump-start the process. If the new technology works out, large orders follow automatically. If the new technology proves impractical, the idea is abandoned. Grants are a catalyst - not a permanent support. Is that the right thing to do? I'm not going there; debating politics isn't the purpose of this discussion. I'm merely pointing out that that's what was done, and it has successfully catalyzed commercial EV sales.

Here's what I know about EVs: their total life cycle costs are already lower for most commercial vehicles and select non-commercial applications. They'll achieve purchase cost parity with ICEs in 3-5 years. EV technology provides higher performance, greater reliability, and greater convenience than ICEs. Countries that import oil, representing more than half of oil consumption, have a powerful incentive to move to EVs. Commercial vehicle operators are already partnering with EV startups and placing large orders. Traditional automotive manufacturers - even those initially resistant to EVs - are rapidly shifting to EVs. Armies of engineers are being hired and factories are being retooled, signaling that companies expect to invest in EVs for decades to come. If you look at what the industry is doing, all of the data suggests that EVs will quickly dominate.

Five years ago, I would have said EVs are possible, but may be relegated to a niche. Today, after seeing what's coming down the R&D pipeline, I think you'd have to have your head in the sand to question them.

Obviously not worth replying to. Funny that you think I'm blind to the situation . I mention 3rd world specifically india and you go off on economy.  I name a large driving force of their economy that's very successful and you change to manufacturing r and d. 

TATA is doing fine they sell the cheapest car in the world and EV .VW was the biggest automaker before Diesel gate now going into EV ... I'm sure they care about the environment after an emissions scandal. Funny the 180 they pulled. Especially after more news of Government Taxation on emissions.  Your moving goal posts are not worth goin for goals. The auto industry is great that's why every recession they need a bail out. Anyways enjoy pumping self explanatory news. HEAVY TAXES,  EXPENSIVE TECH FOR IMOROVED FLEET ECONOMY,  REBATES ON EV AND CREDITS DUE TO EV COMPANIES FOR "THE GREATER GOOD" AND MAKE AN EV OR PAY THE PIPER LAWS. ....

I SERIOUSLY WONDER WHERE THE INDUSTRY IS GOING??!!

- YOUR PUMP HERE

[markslawson + 1,042]

21 hours ago, Rob Kramer said:

I dont see how a 4 seater car gets 5-10people to different jobs and houses all on time. Another day dream is all. At Christmas are 5-10 traveling families gonna pack into one vehicle? If anything there will be more cars heavier traffic and slower non speeding vehicles slowing down pedal to the metal drivers who dont care for self driving or cant afford. It's all a dream.

Actually all good points.. I was thinking autonomous cars might take over some off the market, but I agree there is a certain element of wishful thinking.. 

[markslawson + 1,042]

10 hours ago, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

You're looking at a snapshot in time when you should be looking at an aggregate of data. Consider the following:
1) EVs will be cheaper than ICEs in a few years.
2) Consumers in developed nations have indicated that they will purchase EVs when the price is right, which will happen in 3-5 years.
3) Autonomous vehicles are very much an EV phenomenon for two reasons:
     a) They're cheaper. Per my previous post, commercial vehicle operators understand lifecycle costs.
     b) They require less human intervention for fueling and maintenance.

Details matter.

My original points are untouched by your response. You say EVs will be cheaper than ICEs in 3-5 years - until then governments have to buy market share, as I said, to create the volumes that will make EVs cheaper. Actually I think bottom end EVs are cheaper already, but consumers still don't seem much interested without substantial government assistance. Admittedly you still have the problem of resale values, and falling prices may in fact work against current sales (cars bought now are usually sold or traded in after 3-5 years - if prices are falling they will be worth much less by then, destroying the costs argument). However, consumers still seem reluctant, no matter what the consumer surveys may say. As for the bit about autonomous cars.. ICEs can still be used in that role, as I said. Your claim is that EVs are cheaper and require less human intervention .. well, I won't argue that point but I don't see how it affects what I said originally.

Anyway, time to move on. Thanks for the discussion. 

[NickW + 2,714]

20 hours ago, Rob Kramer said:

Yes I'm sure your paragraph of logic defies the 5th largest car company in the world. ... dream on. 

Possibly the worst recession since the 30s and a K shaped recovery according to experts where only the rich stay above the problem.  

The only reason car companies make electric cars is because subsidies and taxes and credits. There not profitable to produce sell or repair. Reality will hit them when the Government candy stops raining. And that will happen at a point of no return . Then a bail out  (oh what a surprise) . Who knew pointlessly re inventing over and over would sap all profits. 

An overlooked factor in this is France has virtually no oil resources. On the other hand it has a huge nuclear power* portfolio plus rapidly growing wind sector, good hydro resources, plenty of opportunities for solar, and good potential for tidal which it has already exploited on the Rance Estuary. 

EV's offer France the opportunity to get off the the oil import hook and this may be an additional motivation of the Govt. 

* Which has huge surplus overnight production that currently gets dumped for next to nothing on neighbouring grids. 

Edited October 21, 2020 by NickW

[Rob Kramer + 696]

2 hours ago, NickW said:

An overlooked factor in this is France has virtually no oil resources. On the other hand it has a huge nuclear power* portfolio plus rapidly growing wind sector, good hydro resources, plenty of opportunities for solar, and good potential for tidal which it has already exploited on the Rance Estuary. 

EV's offer France the opportunity to get off the the oil import hook and this may be an additional motivation of the Govt. 

* Which has huge surplus overnight production that currently gets dumped for next to nothing on neighbouring grids. 

I agree. I said that in the reply that's incomplete to jay. I was trying to calculate government tax income and found it would be at a loss but in the economy if the power is not imported the import / export ratio is better and mabey a trickle down would offset the taxes lost. 

[Rob Kramer + 696]

On 10/19/2020 at 12:05 PM, Rob Kramer said:

 For countries that have alot of Electricity and little fossil fuels they may keep the energy costs in country and that may offset losses on fuel tax. 

Via (less imports in oil exports in $) 

@NickW

I try to veiw the picture as a whole. Most of it is Government intervention and different reactions to that from the various countries, companies and consumers. 

[Rob Plant + 2,610]

On 10/19/2020 at 2:57 PM, BenFranklin'sSpectacles said:

5) Autonomous EVs will happen. When they do, we'll see taxi services that are cheaper than personal vehicle ownership. That will mean commercial EVs running 24/7, each of which replaces 5-10 personal vehicles. Also, these autonomous taxis need not reach price parity with ICEs because companies understand total lifecycle costs.

I totally agree with this point as it makes economic sense for individuals to do so, they also have no insurance, road tax, maintenance costs.

The only question mark against it happening in my eyes is consumer convenience and that depends on the volume/availability of the taxis and I guess that also depends on the demograph of where you live.

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

19 hours ago, markslawson said:

My original points are untouched by your response. You say EVs will be cheaper than ICEs in 3-5 years - until then governments have to buy market share, as I said, to create the volumes that will make EVs cheaper. Actually I think bottom end EVs are cheaper already, but consumers still don't seem much interested without substantial government assistance. Admittedly you still have the problem of resale values, and falling prices may in fact work against current sales (cars bought now are usually sold or traded in after 3-5 years - if prices are falling they will be worth much less by then, destroying the costs argument). However, consumers still seem reluctant, no matter what the consumer surveys may say. As for the bit about autonomous cars.. ICEs can still be used in that role, as I said. Your claim is that EVs are cheaper and require less human intervention .. well, I won't argue that point but I don't see how it affects what I said originally.

Anyway, time to move on. Thanks for the discussion. 

I respectfully disagree, but appreciate your input. +1.

[BenFranklin'sSpectacles + 762]

4 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

The only question mark against it happening in my eyes is consumer convenience and that depends on the volume/availability of the taxis and I guess that also depends on the demograph of where you live.

The cost differential between autonomous taxis and personal ownership is so great that transportation services will meet the demand.

There's also been a trend toward flex time, smoothing the demand curve. That further improves autonomous EV economics.