Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'News' started by Doug_G, Jun 28, 2012.
Half of all new cars will be electric: Tesla CEO
In fact I'd call that conservative. Let me explain my extreme position...
Switches to new technology are not always that linear... the switch to digital audio (CDs) and then to downloadable audio (MP3s)... the switch to digital cameras... the switch to digital cellular. etc. In 1990 few knew of email. By 2000 few didn't know. In 1990 who knew what www meant? In 2000 who didn't?
When the new technology provides clear unquestioned advantages (in the case of EVs they include cost per km, noise, mechanical simplicity, maintenance cost, space efficiency, environmental impact, performance...) and you add to that ever reducing costs of manufacture as volume increases, and the switch can be sudden and profound. We act as a herd, and when critical mass is reached it all of a sudden happens.
We may all here in TMC be early adopters and therefore have taken the leap before others, but when people stop and look at the cold hard facts I think they will switch quickly, sometime around 2016 to 2018.
For a friend of mine for instance, right now they don't entertain the idea of an EV, but they have said that when they are shown an attractive vehicle, that costs the same, is cheaper to run per km (mine is 10x cheaper when I charge on night tariff here), simple to maintain, silent, safe and good for the environment, they will look at the "campfire on wheels" that is an ICE and see it for what it is... a gramophone record player in a world of ipods. As the switch happens the resale value of ICEs will tank and everyone will see EVs as the only future they want to own (except for a few enthusiasts just as is the case with vinyl of course).
The beers are on me in 2018 if I'm wrong, but I have a feeling things may happen very quickly.
My timeline for this is more ambitious, 5-10 years and most of the cars manufactured will be electric. I don't see why anyone would want to buy an ICE vehicle when operating costs of an EV is 10 times lower. Supply is the only bottleneck.
I also believe the ICE->Electric conversion will be a very big market in the coming years. We can't trash the entire world fleet of vehicle but they can be converted.
When all is said and done, EV just make more sense, economically, environmentally and practically. Range anxiety will be a thing of the past in just a few years when people are informed and FUD is gone.
Well, we know what happened to the last guy that bet against Elon...
Electric grid readiness may also be a bottleneck. I've read somewhere that the grid will only be able to support a 10% electric fleet by 2020.
Tesla's challenge in a few years .
Customer deciding to buy electric:
"I like manufacture X because the have been making cars for a hundred years and we have always bought X, but is their new electric car something I want, or to do purchase a Tesla because they have only been building electric cars for years and are known to be the best at that?
If for no other reason that's why other makers are toying with electric concepts and electric protoypes. So they can say "We have been building electrics for XX years!' Nissan did it when they came out with the Leaf. They touted all the EVs they had done before but never mentioned you could never really buy them.
Electric grid is just fine. The grid did not blow-up when everyone got electric dryers and washing machines. The grid was upgraded slowly but surely. An EV will not take more juice than a dryer.
There will be some local bottlenecks but noting major. It all depends on where you are. Here in Quebec, we have hydro-electricity coming out of our butts... no problem with the grid here.
I a bit more skeptical that that. In 2014 or 2015 Tesla will probably introduce an all electric car in the 30-45 price range. I don't know of anybody else that will have an all electric car at a lower price point in the same timeframe with reasonable all electric range. For half the autos to be all electric in the next 5 years, the major manufacturers need to introduce these cars and this price point today. I don't beleive they can with reasonable mileage limits (120 miles per charge) until another leap in battery capability happens. That doesn't look like it will happen for at least 3-4 years.
I think the price-point for "the masses" needs to be lower than 30-45 and be more in the 20-30 range. Look at all the models across the manufactures that fall in that range.
Fusion, Escape, F-150, Malibu, Impala, Equinox, Camry, Rav 4, Altima, Rogue, Sonata, Santa Fe, Optima, Sorento...
While I don't have figures, I have to assume, just by opening my eyes on the road, that this price point is the majority of cars on the road. And yes, you can justify that the price someone is willing to buy will go up with reduced cost of ownership, but you also have to consider that when you get down in this price range, the reason people are buying them is they can't afford more. If they can spread out cost of ownership over years instead of paying it upfront with a more expensive elctric or hybrid, they do that.
So, for Elon's ""In 20 years more than half of new cars manufactured will be fully electric," Musk said. "I feel actually quite safe in that bet. That's a bet I will put money on." and "It's probably going to be in the 12- to 15-year time frame," he said, speaking at an event at Tesla's manufacturing plant in Fremont, where he handed over the keys to the first buyers of the new Model S sedan." statements, I think the 12-15 year time frame is more doable, but I think it will be closer to 15.
Gotta get that base price to 20 (optioned up to 30) for this to happen.
I certainly see the points everyone is making and I'd think I'd be more along the lines of Elon's guess. The ICE has an enormous amount of momentum and history. I agree that given the right circumstances that there will be a mass migration away from the ICE, but they have to be the right circumstances. Those critical areas are recharge time, pack capacity/distance, battery cost, and convenience. We are currently seeing a gradual improvement in each of those areas that leads to Elon's prediction. So, unless there is a major breakthrough or battery prices drop radically then I think Elon has a good feel for where we are going. A game changer is a game changer and that can suddenly change the playing field but how can you predict that?
Don't forget about fuel savings. I spend $300 a month on fuel. I will probably spend ~$30 a month on electricity to charge my Model S. This dynamic is something that makes a $30,000 EV about the same as a $22,000 ICE vehicle. I think that as people figure this out TCO will become a selling point of ALL cars. It is sad it really isn't talked about as much as it should be.
This does require that people get approved for decent loans. But I got pre-approved for a $90k loan at 3.2% from USAA the other day poking around at "Tesla" on their car buying service (the roadster still is the only thing to show up). A $50k car loan is going to be a stretch for me.
Your assumptions are wrong. The model S is already priced in the 20k range when you compare apples with apples.
Lets compare two cars. A Chevy Malibu at $20k (or any of the $20k cars listed) and a Base model S @ $50k.
Lease 5 years with 30% buy back: Model S: $675/month - Malibu:$ 280/months (at this time, the Malibu seems a bargain)
Cost of fuel for 20 000km / a year typical driver : Model S: $25/month - Malibu: 240 / month
Total: Model S: $700 /month - Malibu $520 / month. A difference of $180 / month with model S
That $180 difference is completely wiped out if you drive 30k km / year instead of the average 20k. If you drive 40k km, then the model S is cheaper then the Malibu.
Cost of gas I used is the current cost in Montreal of ~$1.30 / liter of regular gasoline.
I am omitting maintenance savings, no oil change, break change, almost no moving parts, up datable dashboard and car functionality, etc...
Model S is even free if you drive 50k km / year
I wouldn't assume Elon is correct on this. The reason is that oil companies will use every ounce of energy (and money) to fight the use of EVs to their (inevitable) death. Unlike many of the other examples of disruptive technologies that killed off industries (mp3, digital cameras etc.), the oil companies see this one coming. That's why George Bush always favored hydrogen over EVs, because that would (eventually, if it ever worked) be a decent substitute for oil companies to convert to for their gas stations.
Car dealers are also scared to death of EVs because of the lack of maintenance required, because maintenance is where they make most of their money.
I wouldn't underestimate the power and influence of the existing car/oil industry to do everything they can to discourage EVs, and that could inhibit what should be a fairly rapid expansion of the EV market compared to ICEs.
The Model S battery range will be significantly reduced. The resale value on your example car and the Model S will be not be similar.
So you think a 2012 model S will not sell for 15K in 5 years?
Which one are you arguing for?
I dont know, I'm lost. I think I did not understand your comment
My calculations assume a $5k buyback for the Malibu and $15k for the S.
Steph and ElSupreme - I completely understand the "cost of ownership" argument. The point I am trying to make is those that buy the Malibu (most - obvious exceptions exist) do so because that is the most vehicle they can afford. They wouldn't have a chance in getting approved for a 90k loan (or even a 50k one). And while the argument of fuel savings, etc. is valid, if "most" can't afford the additional 30k up front (or additional 395/mo. lease), they won't buy the car. While they would end up spending that extra $ anyway in fuel, maintenance, etc., they will be better off spreading out that additional cost over time. This is why I feel the initial price point will have to drop lower than the 30-45k range for the "masses" car. I'm sorry, but a 3-series (who many consider to be GenIII's preliminary competition) is NOT a "car for the masses". The Malibu, Camry, Altima, Sonata, etc. etc. are.
That is wrong financial thinking. With a lease, you have no upfront cost (other than cashdown sometimes) so you don't need capital.
Any financially smart person will know he will pay more for the lease but less for the fuel. Simple math. It just need to be repeated over and over for people to understand grade 3 maths.
Guess I'm financially dumb. I fall into the BIGGGG boat of people I'm referring to. :crying: