Will Electric Vehicles Be Viable? When?

[Just_a_fan]

Oh they are viable so long as they are subsidised. Admittedly fewer BEVs have been sold than VW Beetles, or any of the other cars in this list. A few rich people drive around in them. A very few not so rich people drive around in them. The rest of us don't.

The sales listed below are in millions.

Car Sales
1. Toyota Corolla 37.5
2. Ford F-series 35
3. Volkswagen Golf 27.5
4. Volkswagen Beetle 23.5
5. Ford Escort (UK) 20
6. Honda Civic 18.5
7. Honda Accord 17.5
8. Ford Model T 16.5
9. Volkswagen Passat 15.5
10. Chevrolet Impala 14

All BEVs ever 9 million

Interesting point. It's worth noting that many car sales, even of things like the Golf and Corolla, are effectively subsidised. Many aren't bought outright, they're hired in one form or another with PCP etc. That's someone not paying the full cost of the vehicle to drive it around and that's a subsidy. Likewise finance contributions on deal. 0% APR on purchases of many things is effectively a subsidy. Buy an expensive item on 0%APR finance over 3 or 5 years and you're being subsidised. Yes, it's not by the Government but it's a subsidy (although I bet the companies involved write it off against tax in some way and so it is a Government subsidy in reality)

Very few people go in to a car dealership and buy a car outright for cash these days and so they're all taking some deal or other. And those are effectively a subsidy.

The cost of BEVs is dropping as are the Government direct subsidies. It won't be long before direct Govt subsidies end and EVs stand toe to toe with ICE on price. In the UK, I think that will happen in the next year or two.

At that point it will come down to things like an individual's range anxiety and ease of home charging.

[henry]

According to world sales and the year on year grown, looks like they´re viable despite all the valid arguments exposed in this thread

https://www.ev-volumes.com/wp-content/u ... 2-2020.png

https://www.ev-volumes.com/country/tota ... e-volumes/

I'm going to guess that in many of those areas, it's PHEVs that dominate. They're a stepping stone technology and avoid the range/charging issues of pure EVs.

In the U.K. last year, 2020, BEVs outsold PHEVs. Some numbers.



From SMMT via Autocar. https://www.autocar.co.uk/car-news/ind ... rket-grows

Similar pattern this year



From SMMT https://www.smmt.co.uk/vehicle-data/car-registrations/

When the U.K. Government announced the 2030 date I made a spreadsheet to look at the implications. One was that to get to 100% BEV sales the exponential growth rate needed to be 1.5% per annum

Currently BEV sales are well ahead of that schedule.

Year require actual
2019 25,000 37,850
2020 37,500 108,205
2021 56,250. 73,893 by end June.

Edited to provide a period for the growth rate

[Just_a_fan]

According to world sales and the year on year grown, looks like they´re viable despite all the valid arguments exposed in this thread

https://www.ev-volumes.com/wp-content/u ... 2-2020.png

https://www.ev-volumes.com/country/tota ... e-volumes/

I'm going to guess that in many of those areas, it's PHEVs that dominate. They're a stepping stone technology and avoid the range/charging issues of pure EVs.

In the U.K. last year, 2020, BEVs outsold PHEVs. Some numbers.
[...]

Interesting figures henry, thanks. I wonder if that is mirrored worldwide or whether other HEV/PHEV are more popular elsewhere.

The figures of sales required to get BEVs by 2030 are also interesting. It's probably a bit like the swap from local rail travel to car travel in the UK. Back in the day lots of small towns and even villages had railway stations and were served by trains. One could get around the place by train. Yes, it wasn't that easy but it was a lot easier than walking, cycling or horse riding. After the Beeching cuts you really needed a car. Yes, railways were already struggling by the time of Beeching but the cuts forced people in to the alternative - the car. The UK Govt's stated aim to ban sales of ICE cars from 2030 is the Beeching Axe of today. It will force people to swap to EVs whether they want to or not. There is no viable alternative for most people. Perhaps we will see more cycling in the 2030s, especially if people are rarely commuting. A mile down the road to the nearest shop? Take the bike. Unless it's raining in which case take the EV.

[Tommy Cookers]

the Beeching cuts were a symptom of the motoring surge not a cause

new cars were unavailable in the UK from 1939 to c.1951 (all were exported unless bought by doctors etc)
so used cars were costly until the 1952 etc built cars became sufficient to alter used car values c.1958
the Suez fuel supply crisis also strangled motoring - including driving lessons and tests

[Just_a_fan]

the Beeching cuts were a symptom of motoring surge not a cause

new cars were unavailable in the UK from 1939 to c.1951
so used cars were costly until the 1952 etc built cars became sufficient to alter used car values c.1958
the Suez fuel supply crisis also strangled motoring - including driving lessons and tests

Yes, I mentioned that car use was damaging railways. The point was that after Beeching people had no choice but to buy a car - even bus routes were being reduced. The same with the move to EVs. 2030 is effectively the Beeching moment for the ICE in the UK.

[nzjrs]

If sales are the main factor to analyse, then supercars are not viable either. Same for pickups, or we could go even further, any engine with more than 4 cylinders is not viable either. They´re very expensive and their sales numbers are so small they can´t be considered viable engines, right?


You guys keep confusing viability with "this will be good for 100% of people", and that´s a falacy. Nothing is good for 100% people, not even ICEV, but we don´t question if they´re viable or not. Any car above $30000 should never be considered viable, but we all see lots of cars even 5x more expensive than that daily in our roads.


Cost and sales do not determine viability. If they do, then, just as an example, Ferrari is not a viable brand, but I´m sure none of you would say this BS

This is a silly point.

The context of this thread is if (the switch to) electric vehicles is viable to affect change on global CO2 emissions and climate change.

So supercars are uninteresting, and (to create a stupid example) even if they were nuclear powered and literally extracted C02 from the atmosphere as they drove around, then they would still not be viable [as a means to affect change] because their numbers are insignifigant.

Ferrari is not a viable brand, but I´m sure none of you would say this BS

I will say this, I just did, above.

My position is that electric vehicles are viable when they are inexpensive enough for the lower-middle class and far poorer to afford them instead of an ICE.

I don't particularly care if BEVs/PHEVs are the second car or a status signal for the wealthy. If that is all viable means to you, or that they are somehow technically capable of performing normal driving duties, then I guess you will be waiting for a long time to see meaningful emissions reductions.

[henry]

The context of this thread is if (the switch to) electric vehicles is viable to affect change on global CO2 emissions and climate change.

The answer to this question is yes. Is it sufficient to be noticeable? No.

This thread focuses on BEVs because it’s on a petrolhead forum. But they are a very small proportion of what is going to be needed to slow and perhaps stop CO2 emissions.

As @Tommy Cookers keeps pointing out domestic heating is bigger and even that is also a tiny proportion of the global perspective.

IF we are to make any observable impact we will need to change the details of almost everything we do. 2% here 5% there until it all adds up to what’s needed. The major problem is that there will be pushback from interested parties in every 2% increment. Why me? Why not them? We see some of that here.

[hollus]

The context of this thread is if (the switch to) electric vehicles is viable to affect change on global CO2 emissions and climate change.

I thought the point of the thread was whether EVs were a practical vehicle?

Goes to show how hard it is to carry a conversation in a forum and how one ends up talking past each other.

I guess we are both wrong and both right regarding the discussion subject. Interesting.

[nzjrs]

I thought the point of the thread was whether EVs were a practical vehicle?

Goes to show how hard it is to carry a conversation in a forum and how one ends up talking past each other.

I guess we are both wrong and both right regarding the discussion subject. Interesting.

Haha indeed! Very good point!

[Just_a_fan]

IF we are to make any observable impact we will need to change the details of almost everything we do. 2% here 5% there until it all adds up to what’s needed. The major problem is that there will be pushback from interested parties in every 2% increment. Why me? Why not them? We see some of that here.

We will effectively have to source all of our energy requirements from renewable sources, or rather from sources that don't result in a net increase in atmospheric CO2. That could be nuclear just as easily as it could be wind / solar farms.

The issue is simply one of infrastructure. We could, for example, have the entire UK running on electricity for everything in 10 years from now if there was political will to do so. 10 years to upgrade the electricity supply grid, the electricity generation plant, the equipment that uses energy, etc. It's a political decision, not a technical issue.

If the world's governments agreed - never going to happen because too many of them are only in it for their own power trips and aggrandisement - the world's current total energy use could be provided by 90,000km^2 of solar panels (using conservative insolation values). That sounds a lot but it's the size of Portugal. That still sounds a lot but on the scale of the globe it's not:


Look at all of those dark red and pink areas. There're huge areas of very high insolation. Sure, they're in some unhelpful places in some cases, but let's face it oil and other resources are also found in some unhelpful places and that hasn't stopped anyone before. Importantly, the resource is spread over a lot of places which reduces the power of individual bad places to affect/control supply - unlike other resources we can mention. It's also available everywhere albeit at lower energy "density" in northern latitudes. But even then, northern latitude countries could produce a significant percentage of their daily requirements from solar. If there was political will. The UK does have some "solar farms" where fields are covered will solar panels on frames. That seems like a bad use of land but those same fields also can support livestock such as sheep if required. The grass grows around the support structures because there is still plenty of light reaching the ground.

None of it is that difficult technically. But it requires political will and that requires populations to want to do it.

[henry]

IF we are to make any observable impact we will need to change the details of almost everything we do. 2% here 5% there until it all adds up to what’s needed. The major problem is that there will be pushback from interested parties in every 2% increment. Why me? Why not them? We see some of that here.

We will effectively have to source all of our energy requirements from renewable sources, or rather from sources that don't result in a net increase in atmospheric CO2. That could be nuclear just as easily as it could be wind / solar farms.

None of it is that difficult technically. But it requires political will and that requires populations to want to do it.

I don’t think it’s just energy. There’s food production and consumptions, rice as well as cattle for example. There’s shipping, there’s flying and so many more ways in which the volume and consumption habits of the populace release CO2 in pursuit of our goals.

You’re right that in the end politics, representing humanity in the corridors of power, will be the key. Sadly the most important aspect of this will be cooperation and apart from the Ozone hole taking practical steps across borders has not proved responsive enough to meet the challenge.

ALl this in my opinion obviously.

[Just_a_fan]

IF we are to make any observable impact we will need to change the details of almost everything we do. 2% here 5% there until it all adds up to what’s needed. The major problem is that there will be pushback from interested parties in every 2% increment. Why me? Why not them? We see some of that here.

We will effectively have to source all of our energy requirements from renewable sources, or rather from sources that don't result in a net increase in atmospheric CO2. That could be nuclear just as easily as it could be wind / solar farms.

None of it is that difficult technically. But it requires political will and that requires populations to want to do it.

I don’t think it’s just energy. There’s food production and consumptions, rice as well as cattle for example. There’s shipping, there’s flying and so many more ways in which the volume and consumption habits of the populace release CO2 in pursuit of our goals.

That's why I said "all of our energy requirements". Yes, production and transporting of food will also come in to any carbon-neutral system.

[Pat Pending]

This is a quote from a recent Autocar article about VW's 'new Auto' strategy;

"The VW Group will continue to use its ICE business to generate strong cash flow to invest in new technology, but it is expecting that EVs will reach margin parity within three years due to tightening CO2 emissions and the new Euro 7 regulations."

So by 2024/2025 VW expects its EV (BEV?) vehicles to be more profitable than its ICE vehicles. And it is that change in profitability that will really accelerate the switch to EVs because the OEMs will simply choose to stop producing ICE vehicles.

[Greg Locock]

I'm not surprised BEVs outsold PHEVs in the UK. I think in the context of the UK where charging is widely available the penalty, both in costs and EV range, of a PHEV would make them less attractive.

However it has to be said that a PHEV RAV4 awd would suit me in particular very well.

[Andres125sx]

If sales are the main factor to analyse, then supercars are not viable either. Same for pickups, or we could go even further, any engine with more than 4 cylinders is not viable either. They´re very expensive and their sales numbers are so small they can´t be considered viable engines, right?


You guys keep confusing viability with "this will be good for 100% of people", and that´s a falacy. Nothing is good for 100% people, not even ICEV, but we don´t question if they´re viable or not. Any car above $30000 should never be considered viable, but we all see lots of cars even 5x more expensive than that daily in our roads.


Cost and sales do not determine viability. If they do, then, just as an example, Ferrari is not a viable brand, but I´m sure none of you would say this BS

This is a silly point.

The context of this thread is if (the switch to) electric vehicles is viable to affect change on global CO2 emissions and climate change.

So supercars are uninteresting, and (to create a stupid example) even if they were nuclear powered and literally extracted C02 from the atmosphere as they drove around, then they would still not be viable [as a means to affect change] because their numbers are insignifigant.

Ferrari is not a viable brand, but I´m sure none of you would say this BS

I will say this, I just did, above.

My position is that electric vehicles are viable when they are inexpensive enough for the lower-middle class and far poorer to afford them instead of an ICE.

I don't particularly care if BEVs/PHEVs are the second car or a status signal for the wealthy. If that is all viable means to you, or that they are somehow technically capable of performing normal driving duties, then I guess you will be waiting for a long time to see meaningful emissions reductions.

I was talking about the economical point of view wich is one of the main critics against EV (myself included).

If we talk about CO2 viability, then we can discuss endlessly as there´s no viable alternative. But EV are the only one wich might be viable some far day in the future when most electricity production is sustainable. OTOH ICEs running on fossil fuels will always pollute