If car companies can't invent a viable EV solution to compete, what happens to Elon's vison?

[Daliman]

One role I see for electric self driving vehicles is a more flexible public transit system. Imagine a fleet of 10 passenger mini buses that you can call on demand which is controlled by a program that can optimize the destinations. Hundreds of people leave an average suburban neighbourhood to commute an hour driving on their own. The infastucture to suuport this is just existing roads. Transit systems or cab companies could provide much more flexible transport and commuters have hours to relax or be productive.

 

[Sparky]

So every day when Denise or I go to work one of us has to summon a rental car and hope no one else is using it. This is so impractical that it's not even funny. Two (or more) car families are two car families because both parties need to go places at the same time.

I can see how it might be a lot to wrap your head around if you only think of your particular situation. Ours is a 4-car family so, I can feel the tension when I think of reducing my stable of vehicles.
My son is in his 20's, lives in SoCal and has a car. He often chooses to use Uber, especially with friends. He says Uber has expanded his generation's access to Los Angeles because they no longer worry about finding parking, or taking a chance on getting towed or drinking and driving. It's just more convenient. He feels owning / maintaining a car is more hassle than it's worth. If the Uber fleet was all electric, more of his generation's miles would be sustainable miles and cost less than buying an EV which they can't charge in their apt or condo.
This world is a different place than the one you or I grew up with. My "summon" example was not a "model" for the future, just an "example" of doing things differently to achieve sustainability.

 

[N5329K]

I'd invert the OP's question: If traditional car manufacturers can't invent a viable EV to compete with Tesla, what will happen to those traditional car manufacturers?
The transition from whale oil lamps to electric bulbs- a better, safer, cheaper and more convenient option- took only about a decade. There are very few outlets for whale oil these days.
Robin

 

[SebastianR]

The German's lost a lot of marketshare to Tesla in the large luxury segment (chart somewhere on this forum). The lines for a Model 3 drove home the point that the Model S was only the beginning. I don't think they'll dawdle too much longer.

I don't think they are seeing it yet. If you read German newspapers, listen to what the companies say, what people say that work for them - it is very scary! All German car makers had great years. Heck, VW Group is selling more cars then ever - from their perspective there is no rationale for change and the Diesel scandal was just a little hick-up.

I know it is painfully obvious to us. But it is not at all obvious to them. And on that chart? I heard hours and hours of explanations why it is misleading / wrong / doesn't matter etc. It's quite astounding to me.

 

[AUSinator]

I don't know the logistics, but according to the "experts" the EV is only a stop gap mode and hydrogen cell vehicles are the future, as electricity is still mostly produced from polluting sources?

What you dont understand is Hydrogen can never ever be the future as there are so many disadvantages that never can be overcome compared to BEV's. There is actually so many i would have to write a whole page A4 to list them all for you.

 

[wdolson]

I don't know the logistics, but according to the "experts" the EV is only a stop gap mode and hydrogen cell vehicles are the future, as electricity is still mostly produced from polluting sources?

It is true that coal is the most common source of energy for generating electricity today, but the trend in much of the world has been towards renewables and away from coal. Renewables have been becoming cost competitive with older methods of generating electricity and they lend themselves better to micro-installations which allows many smaller players to get into the game rather than requiring large power stations built by large companies with a lot of capital.

There are many analysis out there that prove that running an EV on coal generated electricity is far more efficient than running a car on gasoline. Current Li-ion batteries only have about 1/30 the energy density of gasoline. Gasoline has about 30-33 KWh/Gal and Li-Ion batteries about 1 KWh/Gal. The volume of the battery pack on the Model S/X is around 96 gallons (US) and currently holds about 90 KWh of energy. But you get just shy of 300 miles real world range from that 90 KWh. 90 KWh of gasoline (about 3 gallons) will get you about 90-100 miles in most small sedans, and only about 60 miles in an SUV. Burning gasoline to run an ICE loses most of the energy to heat, and some to other factors. ICE cars need radiators to deal with all the excess heat.

Burning coal to generate electricity that in turn goes into an EV you get back 60-70% of the energy released burning the coal, many times more efficient than burning an equivalent amount of gasoline.

Today almost all hydrogen is made from natural gas because electrolyzing water is very energy inefficient. The article I posted up thread has a chart comparing what you get out of 100 KWh of electricity driving an EV vs a hydrogen car. You utilize 3 times the energy with an EV. 70% of the energy is wasted making, storing, transporting, and burning the hydrogen. The hydrogen reaction is more efficient than burning the gasoline, but the energy trail getting there is a huge loss and you're ultimately down around the efficiency of an ICE.

The point you made above is propaganda from the industry trying to push hydrogen fuel cells so they can convert natural gas to hydrogen. North America has a natural gas glut right now and wholesale prices are dirt cheap. The producers are looking for new ways to sell it. Hydrogen fuel cells are a great deal for them. If they became popular it would eat up the natural gas glut and there is no way even renewable energy electrolysis of water could compete (the facility to generate renewable energy isn't free). The wholesale price difference is between the two methods is big and unlikely to get much cheaper any time in the near future.

 

[Qball]

Tesla price point will not get lower than the Model 3. There will be a sub $30k EV market (i.e. intra-city driving) that very large companies like GM or Toyota will play in.

 

[eloder]

So every day when Denise or I go to work one of us has to summon a rental car and hope no one else is using it. This is so impractical that it's not even funny. Two (or more) car families are two car families because both parties need to go places at the same time. When we lived in Vancouver, Denise never needed a car so we only ever had one car. Now that we're in the U.S. one car just doesn't cut it.

I'd also guess that the rental car fees will be something like 10% less than a taxi. No one could afford that on a daily basis. This is just as practical as saying that most people should commute by bicycle--which I did for a number of years--and it has about the same likelihood of success.

Non-summoning car-sharing systems like car2go work just fine. When I ran the numbers on car2go, I would have to drive something like over 5000 miles a year before owning my own car became worth it. 5000 miles isn't a huge number, but autonomous EVs could easily cost 1/4th as much as a service like car2go.

 

[Jeff N]

There are many analysis out there that prove that running an EV on coal generated electricity is far more efficient than running a car on gasoline.

Why should I care about abstract efficiency? I care about CO2e per mile or other pollutants.

If that is the criteria then EVs on coal electricity are worse than gasoline cars that are hybrids like the 53 mpg Toyota Prius or the 46 mpg Chevy Malibu.

Burning coal to generate electricity that in turn goes into an EV you get back 60-70% of the energy released burning the coal, many times more efficient than burning an equivalent amount of gasoline.

I thought coal electricity plants were typically 30-35% efficient.

 

[N5329K]

Jeff:
I don't think you'll find a 100% coal-fired grid anywhere in the US. Nationally, coal provides about 1/3 of the total electric supply. This changes regionally, and even by the hour. The equivalence of an EV running on that mythical 100% coal grid and the Prius is really an illustration of just how superior EV's really are. When all is considered, from well/seam to wheel, the very worst case imaginable (but not found in this country) puts the EV on an equal footing with one of the most (practically) efficient gasoline cars on the market.
That's a strong vote for getting underway on electric power.
Robin

 

[neroden]

The full question I want to ask is:

If car manufacturers continues to produce sub-par EVs, how will this ultimately affect Elon Musk's mission of pushing sustainable transport for the world?

In that case, Tesla stockholders make lots, and lots, and lots, and lots, and lots of money. And Elon's mission continues on schedule.

I assume that the other manufacturers will catch up. Some of them are starting to seriously try. Tesla should have competition in 2019.

 

[neroden]

I do not think that a proportional reduction in gas stations would be a problem for (near-)EREVs, although it would make filling up less convenient and potentially create more exploitation. EREV's problem is related to price competitivity and packaging.

But, importantly for the EREV driver, gas stations would be needed for long-distance travel, so there would still be gas stations along major travel routes. The situation would be like Superchargers, but with extra local refueling.
Within 5 miles of my home there are at least 11 gas stations. In that area there are about 50k people. On my route to work I pass another 5. If both our cars were Volts like our 2013, one would hardly need to be filled at all, and the other would be filled every 2 to 4 weeks, depending on the time of year. And with Gen 2 there would be even fewer fill-ups. And that's in a less-than-ideal climate. Even if we were 90% electric and you knocked out 90% of gas stations we wouldn't be horribly inconvenienced.

In more rural areas, there might be more of an issue, but remember than the margin on gasoline is quite low. If a lone gas station saw a 90% drop in gasoline sales, it would need to dekatuple its margin and then gas would go up maybe 50 cents. Hardly earth-shattering, although helpful to BEV.

This is a relatively good analysis, but it doesn't account for the large environmental cleanup costs associated with gas stations. With volume of sales declining, a monopoly gas station owner (who already drives an electric car) may well decide to shut down the gas station to get out from under the environmental liability as soon as possible. If they decide to raise gas prices instead, they would probably raise them as much as they can in order to try to cover those cleanup costs. The raised prices will cause even more drops in gas sales...

Anyway, I think it's going to be a tipping-point effect where we go from 11 gas stations to none quite quickly.

 

[Bangor Bob]

It is true that coal is the most common source of energy for generating electricity today

Good(ish) news. In the United States, that should no longer be the case starting this year.

[URL='http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=25392#']Natural gas expected to surpass coal in mix of fuel used for U.S. power generation in 2016[/url]

Unfortunately, we're burning a heck of a lot of natural gas instead, but non-hydro renewables are also climbing fast.

 

[Canuck]

In BC, 90% of our power comes from hydro-electric, also know as rain (or snow) water....

Generation System

That's what powering my Tesla the vast majority of the time.

 

[wdolson]

Why should I care about abstract efficiency? I care about CO2e per mile or other pollutants.

If that is the criteria then EVs on coal electricity are worse than gasoline cars that are hybrids like the 53 mpg Toyota Prius or the 46 mpg Chevy Malibu.

If you are using a less efficient energy source, you need to burn more of it to get the same result. Coal does produce more CO2 per ton than gasoline, but a stationary power plant running at peak efficiency is likely to produce less CO2 over the long run than a car burning fossil fuels.

I thought coal electricity plants were typically 30-35% efficient.

I was inaccurate in my explanation. If you look at the graphic in the article I linked to in my first post. It shows the efficiency for getting from 100 KWh of electricity generated in whatever way. If you put that electricity into an EV, you get back about 69 KWh. If you apply the same electricity to making hydrogen for use in a hydrogen car, you only get about 20-23 KWh of energy driving the car. An EV is three times more efficient at electricity usage.

If the electricity was generated from coal and you are concerned about CO2, the EV consumed a lot less CO2 per mile as the hydrogen car.

 

[roblab]

 

[Jeff N]

Coal does produce more CO2 per ton than gasoline, but a stationary power plant running at peak efficiency is likely to produce less CO2 over the long run than a car burning fossil fuels.

There aren't many grid regions that are entirely coal -- there is usually a significant mix of nuclear, hydro or natural gas mixed in. Also, coal-fired plants like other electricity plants, don't always run at their nominal peak efficiency in the real world. But even with some of those other lower-carbon sources mixed in we can look at fueleconomy.gov to see CO2 emissions.

For example, in the upper mid-west more than usual coal is used in the grid. The most efficient Tesla, the S70D, emits 280 g per mile versus a 2016 Prius which emits 205 g per mile burning gasoline (including refinery emissions etc.). Even the most efficient EV, the BMW i3 BEV, would emit 230 g per mile there.

 

[EVie'sDad]

As for California, just 7.82% of the state’s electricity comes from coal sources. So saying there’s a relationship between the electric grid of the South and the charging stations out in the Golden State is purely mythical.

Myth 3: EV emissions reductions are negligible
Out in EV country, California’s electric grid uses natural gas (44.31%), renewables (18.77%), large hydroelectric (7.76%) and nuclear power (8.84%) to get its EVs charged. These sources of electric power are the ones University of Minnesota researchers said “reduce environmental health impacts” by at least 50%.

A Cheat Sheet to Debunking Myths About Electric Vehicles

 

[jerry33]

If the Model X starts to eat into the Cayenne market and the upcoming Model Y starts to eat the Macan - then I see Porsche go down since the two SUVs are what keeps Porsche alive. The Panamera is already feeling the heat of the Model S (even if Porsche would never admit that).

Unless it's changed since VW bought it, Porsche's main business has automotive technology, the cars have been primarily to test and showcase the technology.

 

[jerry33]

For example, in the upper mid-west more than usual coal is used in the grid. The most efficient Tesla, the S70D, emits 280 g per mile versus a 2016 Prius which emits 205 g per mile burning gasoline (including refinery emissions etc.). Even the most efficient EV, the BMW i3 BEV, would emit 230 g per mile there.

The big problem here is that CO isn't the only pollutant. EVs don't emit where people live and breath. This makes a big difference to overall health. The ICE numbers also assume that an ICE car never changes it's pollution level from when it was new, but ICE cars always get dirtier with age, while EVs get cleaner as the grid gets cleaner and/or people add solar panels to their houses. And then there's the national security issue where the electricity is produced in-country rather than some of it coming from out-of-country.