PHEVs forecast to be 9% of auto SALES (not % of fleet) by 2020; 22% of sales in 2030

[JohnWxy]

http://blogs.edmunds.com/greencaradvisor/2010/11/plug-in-evs-could-comprise-9-of-us-auto-sales-by-2020-bloomberg-study-says.html">Bloomberg New Energy Finance forecasts plug-in electric vehicles could account for up to 9% of US auto sales in 2020 and 22% in 2030

Plug-in electric vehicles such as Nissan's Leaf battery-electric model and the Chevrolet Volt plug-in hybrid have the potential to comprise 9% of auto sales in 2020 and 22% in 2030 (1.6 million and 4 million vehicle sales respectively), the subscription research company Bloomberg New Energy Finance reported today.

Achieving such growth levels, however, will be dependent on two key factors - aggressive reductions in battery costs and rising gasoline prices, the company said.

The report issued this morning comes less than a week after analysts at http://blogs.edmunds.com/greencaradvisor/2010/10/formidable-roadblocks-remain-to-broad-acceptance-of-electric-drive-vehicles-report-by-jd-power--associates-says-growth-prospects-may-be-over-hyped.html">J.D. Power and Associates - contradicting the fairly rosy future for electric-drive vehicles by some industry figures - said stable gasoline prices, high technology costs and uneven regulatory approaches are likely to hamper global acceptance of hybrid- and battery-electric vehicles over the next decade.
(more)


http://blogs.edmunds.com/greencaradvisor/2010/10/formidable-roadblocks-remain-to-broad-acceptance-of-electric-drive-vehicles-report-by-jd-power--associates-says-growth-prospects-may-be-over-hyped.html">J.D. Power and Associates
"Southern California-based J.D. Power sides with those projecting more modest growth, saying that combined hybrid and BEV sales will claim just over 7 percent of the passenger vehicle market by 2020 - or 5.2 million electric-drive cars and light trucks. "
~~
~~
The J.D. Power report is one of a growing number, though, that take into account the continuing global economic slump and its impact both on consumers' spending habits and governments' willingness to aggressively promote and incentivize expensive electric-drive technologies.

We've reported on several, including a May report by http://blogs.edmunds.com/greencaradvisor/2010/05/deloitte-study-sees-ev-growth-hampered-by-battery-costs-but-rising-after-2015.html">Deloitte that said 6 percent market penetration by electric-drive vehicles in the next decade would be the best-case scenario and a Dec. 18 report from Pike Research that enumerated may of the same issues Sargent and his team raise.
(more)

[Jackpine Radical]

1. Hell yes, we can have stable gas prices.

All we have to do is take over every country in the world with oil.

Of course that will result in a somewhat expanded military budget. But it will be no problem to pay for that once we further reduce the taxes and bothersome regulations on corporations & the rich.

[JohnWxy]

2. We of course are NOT going to have stable gas prices going into the future however, that won't help

as much as you might think because as gas prices go up, everything else we buy will rise. THis will impact the consumers in effect reducing any gains (if there are any) in income. THis will not make it any easier to sell PHEVs until the prices can come down significantly. I think standard hybrids will do a bit better.

The economics of the Plug-ins is a bit tougher and rising gas prices, while it makes the price of the PHEV look better, it also shrinks the car buyers income. But I think on balance increasing gas prices will help PHEV sales but this effect will be counter-balanced to a degree by the fact that rising oil prices reduces the consumers real income over-all.

(Note if gas prices rise too fast - and I think they will - we will go back into a recession (with higher unemployment) which is definitely not good for cars with costlier technology making for higher up-front costs to the buyer).

[Jackpine Radical]

3. I hate living in an age

when you have to mark your sarcasm with a special little sarcasm thingie.

[JohnWxy]

4. I don't 'get ' this remark. I agreed with you that stable gas prices is not a realistic scenario.

This is what I thought your point was...in that, about the only way oil/gas prices would remain stable would be if we took military action to take over oil supply. (I was aware you were not offering that as a realistic or likely scenario either ... thus gas prices are not likely to remain stable).;)

[Jackpine Radical]

5. Well, of course everything is gonna go to hell.

It's already most of the way there. And I do think that TPTB want to take over the resources (not just oil, but rare earths, etc.) of the rest of the world. As long as they have their way, we're going to be paying to support a huge military & nothing much else (health care, SS, education, environmental interventions, green technologies, you name it).

[JohnWxy]

6. To convert this to some GHG reduction WAGS ..3% to 4% GHG reduction for personal transportation

NOw if we hit 22% of SALES in 2030. perhaps that would mean electrics (hybrids and PHEVs) might be (just guessing here) perhaps 5.5% to 7% of the entire fleet (let's assume all the electrics sold over the 20 year period are still on the road by 2030. NOw, again a WAG here, it Hybids and PHEVs were on average getting a 60% reduction of GHGs(vs today's typical gas powered ICE)...( and I think this is being fairly optimistic considering that about 50% of our power comes from coal and there won't be that much reduction in the use of coal for power in 20 yrs) that would meand all electrics and hybrids would be achieving a GHG reduction for the personal transportation sector of about 3% to 4%.

These are of course rough approximations. IF we adopted electrics and hybrids at about double the rate forecasted, the GHG reductions would rise to 6% to 8%.

[txlibdem]

8. My GHG reduction is going to be 100%, I'll be driving an electric car

Right now I'm getting 100% of my power from Texas Wind Power. By 2030 I'll have solar panels on my roof and my own wind turbine(s), at least enough to provide all the power for our electric cars (which we will buy sometime between now and then) and hopefully enough to supply all our energy needs.

[JohnWxy]

11. I would love to see us get to 20% wind power by 2020 and go beyond that for 2030 but I am betting we

will be lucky to get to 20% wind power by 2030.. which sadly, doesn't change the results of the GHG reductions for electric cars all that much.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704188104575083982637451248.html

OUr target is to achieve 20% of our power from wind by 2020 (I hope we achieve that). Texas gets 6% of it's power from wind.

[txlibdem]

13. Texas gets more power from wind --and it's growing every year

The report found that wind power supplied about 7.8 percent of the energy load (in 2010), compared with about 6.2 percent in 2009 and 4.9 percent in 2008. That shows steady growth, growth that is not expected to slow any time soon --quite the contrary.
http://www.bizjournals.com/houston/news/2011/01/13/texas-electricity-use-rose-in-2010.html

But why quibble over a few percent. Texas got 39% of its power from coal in 2010. 13% comes from nuclear and about 38% from natural gas (the rest, around 1.5%, comes from solar and hydro).

I guess we could go back and forth with this 2030 projected EV and PHEV market penetration, what it means for green house gases, how much internal combustion engine vehicles will pollute from 2010 till then, how many squirrels and chipmunks will have to move to higher elevations due to rising temperatures (that is an unhappy consequence of global climate change).

To my mind, I see a 59% increase in wind energy in 3 years and that brings wind energy into "real" numbers by 2030, no?

[txlibdem]

14. Some days Texas wind produces 22% of energy demand

For instance, in March of 2010:
http://www.star-telegram.com/2010/03/01/2006741/west-texas-breezes-push-wind-power.html

The funniest thing I read in the above link? They had to shut down the wind turbines when the went over 22% because the electrical lines couldn't handle that much power.

[txlibdem]

7. Here are the historical gas prices, in chart form

You'll clearly see that there is a definite upward trend in gasoline prices. Gas prices here in Dallas just hit $3 for the first time since 2008. We're just a smidgen under the national average. In San Diego (which is pretty equivalent in population) gas is at $3.32:
http://www.gasbuddy.com/gb_retail_price_chart.aspx?time=24
... the cool thing about this chart is that you can go back up to 6 years. Is history going to repeat itself with $4 gasoline? You betcha! Pundits are saying that $5 a gallon is likely by 2015.

PS, this is the site I use whenever my wife wants to get gas on the way home from work. There is a map accessed via the home page that shows current gas prices by city, state or zip code. So I just pull that up and let her know which of her favorite stations has the lowest price (some stations aren't always updated as quickly as others so it's not always perfect --but it's better than driving around looking for the best prices).

My point: electric cars are looking pretty darn good right about now.

[JohnWxy]

9. Well, maybe we could all move next door to you so we could achieve those savings too.

If we sell enough hybrids and PHEVs to equal 22% of sales in 2030, I (very roughly) expect that would mean about 5% to 7% of the entire fleet would be hybrids. If all electrics (hybrids and PHEVs) on average got 60% reduction (remember not everybody in the country lives in your county and about 50% of our power comes from coal across the entire country - this won't change that much in 20 years) then .6 x .07 = .04 ..4% GHG reduction (for the personal transportation sector). If we sell twice as many hybrids and PHEVs (as predicted abive) then that figure would go to a whole 8%. .... twenty years from now.

Think we got that much time?

[JohnWxy]

10. as you can "clearly see" I stated above I do not expect stable gas prices..

"We of course are NOT going to have stable gas prices"

and, as I stated above, I believe gas prices will increase fast enough to easily put us into a recession (probably in 2012 for starters, but given gas demand from India and China I don't see any reduction in demand for gas after 2012 for the foreseeable future). Once in a recession this does not bode well for higher up front priced cars such as PHEVs. So higher gas prices will impact the sales (of PHEVs especially) both ways. Higher gas prices will make PHEVs as well as hybrids more attractive but when unemployment goes up that does not help the sales of higher 'entry price' technologies.

[txlibdem]

12. Sorry, I didn't know we were disagreeing with each other

I'll make this post the reply to both your posts. If your position is anti-electric vehicles and anti-plug-in hybrids then we definitely are in a disagreement.

The difficulty with making accurate predictions about future purchases of this or that product is the number of variables tends to grow exponentially the farther out you try to forecast. For this 20 year forecast the number of variables would be enormous.

[JohnWxy]

15. I am not "anti-electric" vehicles. I am in favor of people being realistic about their expectations

"Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future." - Niels Bohr

Yes, prediction is difficult. That is the point. Yet we continue to do it. As well as being basically unavoidable it is valuable. Predicting is difficult and that is why as new data becomes available predictions should be refined.

In the recent past there were expectations of sales for electric cars which mentioned considerably stronger expected sales figures than those mentioned in the forecasts referred to in OP. These expectations were formulated with virtually no data to work from and thus many people were anxious to start seeing actual data of real world experience (e.g. fuel economy, sales) so these expectations could be refined into something more like empirically based forecasts. I quote from OP:

"The report issued this morning comes less than a week after analysts at J.D. Power and Associates - contradicting the fairly rosy future for electric-drive vehicles by some industry figures..."

These new predictions are from reliable sources and are significantly at variance from earlier expectations. They are therefore worth considering.

Prediction is difficult, and offering one case, yourself, as a reliable indicator of the overall expected result for an entire population does not meet standards of good estimating methodology. (Of course, you weren't offering your own experience but what you EXPECT to be your experience). Offering your expected experience for one person as a good basis to draw a conclusion for the expected results of an entire nation is to employ a rather dubious methodology.

I added my WAGs to convert the annual sales numbers into expected GHG reduction numbers as that is the result we are most interested in.

My interest, as I said, is in looking as realistically as possible at the alternatives we must consider in pursuing ways of reducing GHG emissions. I am for whatever is effective. It doesn't seem to sink in (with some people) but I have stated many times before on this site that we will need to use all technologies available to us if we are to have any chance of reining in Global Warming. That of course, includes electric cars and standard hybrid vehicles.

[txlibdem]

16. We both agree that we need to use all available technologies to reduce global CO2

You correctly point out that my expectations for electric vehicles are not grounded in my personal experiences. But I think you may have drawn an incorrect conclusion that I extrapolate my expected reaction to electric vehicles to the rest of America or the world.

I assume that you are referencing one of my above posts wherein I state that more and more people will adopt electric vehicles as they come to learn their benefits from direct contact with an EV owner (a friend, a coworker, a relative, etc). That isn't projecting my wishes onto anyone else. It is rather the nature of any viral phenomenon: "I tell two friends, and they tell two friends, and they tell two friends, and so on, and so on..." to quote a rather insidious shampoo commercial from ages ago.

I never even thought I could ever afford to get an electric car because the "common wisdom" was that they're far too expensive (just look at the Tesla or the Tango). Then Nissan announced that they would be leasing the Nissan Leaf for $350 per month, and shortly thereafter that GM announced a lease price for the Volt of $350 per month. Both of these are $50 LESS than my wife's car payment from a vehicle we purchased in 2003, and paid off early last year so technically we could trade it in tomorrow (but we're just currently using that extra to pay down credit cards and my medical expenses right now).

Were I to purchase an electric car today we would add additional savings in fuel costs; our current gasoline expenses are now ~$160 per month yet the electricity cost (at 11.9 cents per kilowatt hour) would be only $49.19 to "fuel" an electric car like the Nissan Leaf. $160 minus $50 equals a $110 net gain to our budget from driving an electric vehicle. When gas was $3.50 to $4 a gallon it cost us between $225 to $300-ish a month (hard to draw a straight line because we seriously cut down on optional driving during that time). Supplementary point: everyone who has recently made a prediction about gas prices says we are definitely going to see $4 a gallon and probably $5 a gallon within the next 2 or 3 years.

Now let's say that my neighbor and I are talking and I happen to mention that our electric car saves us $110 per month over driving a gasoline vehicle, yet it has more power, more convenience features and more high tech gadgets than most new cars on the market today (and far more than our "old" gas vehicle). My view is that my neighbor might think some of that sounds like a good idea, he may plan to get an electric vehicle the next time he's in the market for a new car.

Shortly after that, my neighbor drives his electric car to work where he talks to a coworker, with the same result. That coworker happens to strike up a conversation with someone at the car wash. That person is approached by someone at the grocery store. Etc., etc., etc. It's a snowball effect of great change being the end result of one tiny happenstance (my casual conversation with a neighbor).

That is my view of how the reality of the benefits of electric vehicles will pan out as it relates to consumers' future choices. You can see that I'm not extrapolating my experience at all; I'm simply explaining how people interact and influence each other each and every day.

========================================
Notes on my calculations
==================================================
Some of you may be wondering how I derived that $110 figure. The first thing you must know is (and I love her more than life itself, sunshine on a warm spring day, cherry pie, etc. combined) but my wife is a lead foot! I joke sometimes that she must think the accelerator pedal is an on/off switch and the brake is to be used only at the last possible second. So I downgraded the mileage she would get out of an electric car by 1/4th based on that and her pattern of air conditioning and heater usage. I rounded her miles traveled up to make the math easy but the gasoline usage is from actual gas receipts, averaged over the past year or so.

Electric car: 40 miles driven per day, 333 watt hours per mile (3 miles per kilowatt hour), and 11.9 cents per kilowatt hour: 40/3 = number of kilowatt hours to travel 40 miles, multiplied by .119 to find dollars and cents cost of ~$1.59 per day.

Gas car: 40 miles driven per day, 23 miles per gallon (since winter hit it's been closer to 20 mpg but we're averaging), and $2.89 a gallon (the cost today at the gas stations we use in our area - from http://www.gasbuddy.com). 40/23*2.89 = $5.03 per day.

==========================================
A more generalized scenario
=====================================================
Let's compare a new gasoline vehicle versus the Nissan Leaf, both driven by a more "light-footed" driver. Nissan says the leaf will use 225 watt hours per mile driven (GM says the Volt uses 200 watt hours per mile), let's use 225. And let's assume your new gas car averages 30 mpg (city and highway).

Electric car: 40 miles driven per day, 225 watt hours per mile (4 miles per kilowatt hour), and same 11.9 cents per kilowatt hour: 40/4*.119 = $1.19 per day, $36.89 per month "fuel" cost.

Gas car: 40 miles driven, 30 MPG, and multiplied by gas price $2.89, $3, $3.50, $4, $4.50 and $5.
40/30*(gas price)
$2.89 = $3.85 a day, $119.45 per month, ($82.56 monthly savings by driving a Nissan Leaf)
$3.00 = $4.00 a day, $124.00 per month, ($87.11 monthly savings by driving a Nissan Leaf)
$3.50 = $4.67 a day, $144.67 per month, ($107.78 monthly savings by driving a Nissan Leaf)
$4.00 = $5.33 a day, $165.33 per month, ($128.44 monthly savings by driving a Nissan Leaf)
$4.50 = $6.00 a day, $186.00 per month, ($149.11 monthly savings by driving a Nissan Leaf)
$5.00 = $6.67 a day, $206.67 per month, ($169.78 monthly savings by driving a Nissan Leaf)

*if your electricity costs less or your gas car gets either better or worse average gas mileage then the numbers will change for you.

Gas prices prices just need to climb another 60 cents until the 30 mpg vehicle is just as bad as our SUV. How do you know your "average" mpg? One way is to keep track of the miles you drive between fill-ups and divide by number of gallons purchased. Newer cars have this mpg info on the dash already, our vehicle doesn't so we have to "do the math" at each fill-up.

[JohnWxy]

17. some nice number crunching there. You left out two considerations which are part of the equation

though.

One. The initial price of the car.

If your neighbor gets the tax credit the Leaf will cost about $25,000 vs a (comparable weight and payload car) corolla $16,000. Let's for simplicity work with $5.00 a gallon gas. How long to accumulate savings equal to the $9,000 difference? Don't forget the time value of money. Let's use 5% annual rate. NOw I used 12,000 miles per year as that is the average miles driven by drivers in U.S. The daily savings comes to $136. The time required for these monthly savings to recover the $9,000 extra cost (with 5% pr annum cost of money) would be...approximately 8 yrs.

				
	miles per year		12000	 32.88 (miles per day)
	miles per gallon	   30	
	gallons per year	  400	
	cost per gallon		$5.00 	
	Cost per year	       $2,000	
	months per year		   12	
	cost per month	        $166.67 	
	Leaf cost per month	 $30.32 (adjusted for miles per day)	
	fuel savings per mo	$136.35 
				
				
	 $25,000 			
	 $16,000 			
	 $9,000 	 $136.00 	66	
w CoM	 $13,427 	 $136.00 	99	
				
	99 months equals roughly	8 years


	$9,000*1.05^8.2 = $13,427

Now for the second consideration. At what point will higher gas prices cause deeper recession and increase unemployment which impacts sales of higher up-front cost automobiles. My bet is between $3.50 and $4.00 you will see our economy slip into deeper recession. This will impact all car sales including hybrids and especially PHEVs.

The rising price of gas really complicates the picture in a nasty way. That's why I know we need to do something to reduce gas demand faster than the reduction that electrics will achieve. That is in no way saying we don't need electrics. Obviously we do. But we also need to do something to get results much faster than they can achieve.

If we incentivized manufacture of the http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/10/061027183740.htm">Ethanol Direct Injection engines (by making more ethanol blender pumps available) at $1,000 to $1,500 additional cost they would be adopted much more quickly than PHEVs or Hybrids and reduce gasoline demand by about 24% to (29% with Stop Start Ignition) per car (with currently available technologies). But we will not do that.

[txlibdem]

18. I don't think you're comparing comparable vehicles

It's not just about weight and payload. Try to convince the owner of a Cadillac CTS that he should think about buying a Corolla next time. Not gonna happen.

My comparison was based on the monthly cost to lease and drive two vehicles. I feel that if you are looking at a $350 per month Leaf or Volt you would not be waffling between that and a Kia Forte or the bottom-rung Toyota.

The Corolla is just not a comparable vehicle, Edmunds says, "Disconnected driving experience; unimpressive cabin quality; common luxury features are unavailable." And the $16k vehicle is a stripped-down base model w/ anemic engine and manual trans.
http://www.edmunds.com/toyota/corolla/2011/

A closer approximation would be the Corolla LE, $17300, auto trans, with the additional Premium Package @ $2150, total $19,450. But it still does not include voice activated navigation system (nor *any* navigation at all), so even that is not a match.
http://www.edmunds.com/toyota/corolla/2011/options.html?style=101372441&trim=le
http://www.edmunds.com/nissan/leaf/2011/features-specs.html?style=101300950

So we're down to $5,500 price difference. Please be assured, I'm not knocking the Corolla; it's a good car that has most of the safety and convenience features of the Leaf. I would be happy to drive one.

So, taking your $136 per month savings by driving the Leaf,
5,500/136 = 40.81 months, round up to 41 months ==> 3 years and 5 months till the Leaf starts *making you money* on gasoline alone.
(with 5% additional finance fee) 5,500*1.05=
==========================================
Whoops! We both forgot about the maintenance costs!
=====================================================
Over 10 year vehicle ownership, the Corolla is going to cost you more for maintenance. That is not my opinion, that is just a fact. Any internal combustion engine vehicle requires regular oil changes, and a whole lot more that the Leaf will never need.

Your cost for maintenance and repairs for the first 5 years can be estimated at Edmunds: http://www.edmunds.com/tco.html (for the first 5 years only).

Comparing the 5 year maintenance and repairs expense for both the 2010 Toyota Corolla Le (didn't have the 2011) and the 2011 Leaf, we find that the repair cost is identical but maintenance costs on the Corolla will cost you $1,038 MORE in its first 5 years than the Leaf ($2939 versus $1901).

So we need to adjust our figures to account for the added expense.
5,500 - 1038 = $4,462 cost difference in the vehicles after 5 years
4,462/136 = 32.81 months until the Leaf becomes cheaper to own than the Corolla LE (about 2 years and 9 months).

***Remember, that's just in the first 5 years of ownership. Double that if you want to figure how much the Leaf would save you in 10 years of vehicle ownership: The Leaf becomes cheaper to own after 1 year and 5 months.

[JohnWxy]

20. using Edmunds fuel cost for Leaf and taxes and fees, 5.5 years to Break Even

										
							       taxes, fees			
					Leaf	 $25,000 	 $3,000.00 	 $28,000.00 		
					Corolla	 $19,450 	 $1,400.00 	 $20,850.00 	months
								 $7,150 	    $142.30 	    50
	miles per year		12000	 32.88 			 $9,351 	    $142.30 	    66
	miles per gallon		30							
	gallons per year		400						5.5	years
	cost per gallon		 $5.00 							
	Cost per year		 $2,000 				maintenance costs			
	months per year		12					months	60	
	cost per month		 $166.67 	 $49 	 $215.65 		Corolla	 $2,939 	 $49 	
	Leaf cost per month       $41.67 	 $32 	  $73.35 		Leaf	 $1,901 	 $32 	
	Total savings per mo	 $125.00 		 $142.30 					
										
	used Edmund's $500 /yr fuel costs for Leaf																	
						

Time required to make up initial price difference = 5.5 yrs


But the second factor I mentioned above trumps all these calculations. I was using $5.00 a gallon gas,
but when gas hits between $3.50 to $4.00 a gallon we will go into a deeper recession. This will sink all car
sales but especially those with higher up-front costs. If I made the calculations above using say $3.50 gas the
time required to recover the initial price difference goes to 8.4 yrs.


Did you want to correct Bloomberg's or or J.D. Power's estimate of electric car sales (including conventional hybrids) in 2020 or 2030?
And then equate that to a GHG reduction number?

[txlibdem]

21. Correcting those clods? Childsplay. I'm infallible!

My greatness is evident to me. Why do you continually attempt to use facts and figures to somehow find faults or imperfections in my logic? Why can't you just accept, as I do, that I am near god-like.

Sometimes I wonder if your head is in the right place. (time for the re-education camp!)
================================
Or, said in another way
=======================================
All this math has given me a headache, your columns have no headings, numbers appear seemingly at random and I'm too lazy right now to debate you on the specifics.

In other words? I win!

PS, remind me not to compose responses on DU while watching Colbert...

[JohnWxy]

23. Sorry about the messiness. I was moving sorta fast and assume people will "go with me"

....not good. Here is a link to the Excel spreadsheet I did the calculations with ... with headings on columns.


https://sites.google.com/site/truthisstrangerthanfictionx/Leaf_cost_to_ICE.xls

My main concern is though the cost of gas getting high enough to impact the economy and dragging down car sales which will particularly impact cars with higher up-front costs - even with cheaper operating costs.

[txlibdem]

24. I think most people care about the monthly payment and not so much about the total cost

The thing that I look at when I buy a car is the monthly out-of-pocket cost. The only question for me is: can I afford it.

With the Nissan Leaf being a $350 monthly lease payment I see that as being $50 less than what our other car used to cost us each month (before we paid it off). So we're already saving $50 a month. (If we bought different car today we'd probably pay at least $400 a month)

Now that I've started thinking about an electric car I also think about the savings in gasoline: $110 the way my wife drives right now. And with no oil changes due every 3 months I just add another $20 a month onto that.

So I just think of it as driving a Leaf for the same price as a crummier car with a $220 monthly car payment.

That's how it nets out to my monthly budget. Maybe I think too simplistically but I'm sure as heck not going to get a well appointed car with voice activated navigation, heated seats, and all the power, safety and convenience features of the Leaf for $220 a month.

Go to your local car dealer and tell him to show you the car you can drive away with today for a $220 monthly payment and then decide.

[JohnWxy]

25. People are affected by the Price of the car unless they're dumb enough or rich enough to throw money

away leasing a car. But car dealers love leasers. :evilgrin:

(link to spreasheet below)

I wasn't going to go into this before but since you forced me...

Your economic comparison of two cars including Aesthetic factors such as voice activated navigation and heated seats (in TEXAS?????) is not valid methodology. One should only compare the vehicles on a functional, utilitarian cost basis. If people are making a decision based purely on economic grounds you should only consider cars on their utilitarian value as modes of transport. Does it get me from point A to point B dry and in reasonable comfort? Extra niceties don't really count. Many people, especially those who cannot afford a $25,000 - $32,000 vehicle, will forego extras like voice activation and other stuff. THey just want reliable transportation. THis is particularly true in difficult economic times like we will be going through for the foreseeable future, thanks to the Trickle-Down Disaster.

Also, most people know that if they continue to lease cars one after another after a few cycles of leasing they could have bought a whole new car ... if they had been buying the car instead of leasing it. But car dealers love Leasing as it gets people to in-effect spend two to three thousand more than they otherwise would have for a car :evilgrin: (when you consider they are paying for the use of the car and end up with nothing of their own at the end of the lease).

Leasing scams notwithstanding, I provided the spreadsheet at link below that compares both cars per a 48 month lease arrangement...

NOw, I considered that you would not be able to get the Federal Tax credit since you are not buying the car. So the Lease agreement is based upon the full price of the Leaf (I did use your $350 per month figure for the Leaf as I didn't really want to go into figuring what the lease rate would be. I figured that $350 sounded pretty close anyway). I used the purchase price to ratio to the Corolla lease rate. I assumed a entirely utilitarian comparison, as this is the only way this would be a valid economic comparison. Thus I used a $17,000 figure for a Corolla with auto trans.

LINK to SPREADSHEET..

https://sites.google.com/site/truthisstrangerthanfictionx/Leaf_cost_to_ICE_1.xls

Now, if you do not like using the $17,000 figure for the Corolla, I put an input field in there where if you enter a 1 instead of the 0 that's in there, the spreadsheet will use the $19,450 purchase price for the optioned up Corolla. (I did this as a favor to you since you seem to be really enamored of the bells and whistles on a car.:D )

I only considered the gas savings for the Leaf over the Corolla ($75 per month) as you said people don't think about the total cost of car ownership(left out maintenance costs). Now, as a purely economic comparison, the amount of money you would have after a four year lease, if you leased the Corolla would be roughly $4,682.

Other factors not considered but not insignificant:

I have not considered how many times you would need a car to go further than 40 miles (round trip) over the course of four years. This could lead to rental car charges.

BTW, I have been Texas in the summer (Dallas-Fort Worth) and 105 degree days were quite common:grr:. I'm assuming A/C is one option you would HAVE to have. I don't know for sure how much operating A/C in 105 degree heat affects your Leaf's range but I would guess it could be significant.

Something else to consider. Time spent in traffic jams for the national average time spent in traffic jams is http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/Traffic/story?id=485098&page=1">16 miles which fits nicely into the 40 range of the Leaf. But of course, that's an average so about half the commuters in the U.S. will be driving more than that. Now, consider, traffic jams:

" Among commuters, more, nearly a third, get nailed by traffic jams at least weekly.

Life for commuters can be heaven or hell. They report an average one-way commute time of 26 minutes (over an average distance of 16 miles). But the variance is huge: On the best days, the average commute is 19 minutes; on the worst days, 46 minutes. That means traffic, at its worst, can double the average commute time, adding 27 minutes each way.

Now, for the ICE powered car that will cut into your gas mileage. But for the Leaf, that may mean you don't get home. Going very slow in traffic jams really cuts into the range of an electric car. (This is the big plus for the Volt extended range car).

So, comparing comparable cars (on a purely transportation functional basis) the Corolla saves you about $4,682 over 4 years.


...of course, NONE of the above considerations should allow us to forget the very uncomfortable truth that when gasoline goes to somewhere between $3.50 and $4.00 a gallon we will slip further into recession. Job growth will suffer, unemployment will rise and people will begin to worry about keeping their job. Under these unfortunate conditions people will become very wary of making large expenditures, like buying a car. If they have to buy one they will be thinking of economy...of operation but most especially of purchase price. The higher up-front cost cars sales will suffer the most. Check with anybody who sells cars for a living.

[txlibdem]

26. We're just too different to agree on this I see --a couple of corrections are needed

1) The range of the Leaf is 100 miles, not 40.
2) Air conditioning does not reduce an electric vehicle's range as much as the heater does.
3) Leasing an electric car is far different than leasing a gasoline or diesel car, good versus bad.

Then there are simply differences of opinion that I don't think we're going to resolve. That's ok. What works for you probably would not work for me and vice-versa.

For instance, you don't think it important to compare feature-by-feature, I on the other hand would never choose one vehicle over another without a full and complete feature-by-feature analysis. If two cars are the same price but one has way more features I'll always choose the one with the extras. Why would anyone choose the featureless car if you pay the same amount out of pocket each month?!? That's just where you and I differ I guess.

Navigation not important? My wife bought an add-on GPS unit to use with our current vehicle, which she absolutely loves and wouldn't want to lose it to save her life. Just recently there was a bad traffic accident that closed down the road, she had to go around using back streets, some one way roads she'd never seen before (a lot of the roads here don't even have street signs); the GPS made that a piece of cake. And since I'm a total gadget geek myself... a voice activated navigation system? Heaven!! PS, I bought her the GPS unit that comes with lifetime traffic so she can almost always go around tie-ups. From what I've read there may be a subscription fee to get the traffic info with the Leaf (if so, I will not be purchasing that option because there are so few accidents and she can just reroute to go around easily anyway).
Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=JNYSTIJEdHo&vq=medium#t=14

A side note to #2 at the top of this post, the video I link to above shows the air conditioning takes away 18 miles from your range (100-18=82 miles --so the Leaf is only good for about 92% of Americans) (bad math corrected on edit)

When gasoline goes up? The effect on small car sales was just as dramatic as the effect on SUV and other gas guzzlers, but exactly the opposite. Here in the Dallas-Fort Worth area you had to look hard to find a fuel efficient vehicle on dealers lots when gas was $4, while at the same time the used car lots were filled to the brim with traded in SUVs and guzzlers. The number of people who took the bus and the train went way up, standing room only on routes that were practically empty when gas was under $3. I don't remember hearing anyone saying that people were getting fired (nobody I know did). It was when the crooked banks' fraudulent activities finally hit the fan that the economy actually tanked so I don't agree about what caused (and will cause) jobs to be lost. Auto sales here were booming (but only for small cars) that's all I know. Maybe things were different where you were?

Now to the Leasing issue (#3 above). You are right to question the logic of leasing a gasoline vehicle; you're better off purchasing, paying it off and driving it till it grinds itself into the dirt. That way you get some of your gas money back (after you get rid of the car payments).

But with an electric vehicle it is a good idea to lease, for three reasons. 1) Lower monthly payments of course. 2) Zero risk for battery and power train reliability (some people are skittish about electric cars because they are too new to have a track record of reliability). 3) Batteries will be better/cheaper by the time your lease is up.

The third point is most important to a lot of potential electric vehicle owners: Nissan has already stated that version 2 of the Leaf will have longer range, possibly double the range of the original for the same price.

[JohnWxy]

27. I can see you do not have a clue about cost comparisons or forecasting what the buying behavior of

the public will be.


YOu said:

"Then there are simply differences of opinion that I don't think we're going to resolve. That's ok. What works for you probably would not work for me and vice-versa. "

and...

"you don't think it important to compare feature-by-feature, I on the other hand would never choose one vehicle over another without a full and complete feature-by-feature analysis."

Try to understand this. What I personally prefer or what you personally prefer has nothing to do with it. What I am talking about (and the people at Bloomberg New Energy and J. D. Powers are trying to do) is forecast what the over-all U.S. public will do with regard to buying electric versus non-electric cars. What you personally like or I personally like isn't the point. You have to draw a conclusion as to what a large number of the buying public are going to spend money for. this is what the analysts at Bloomberg and JD powers did when they forecast that electrics might be 9% of new car sales in 2020 and 22% of new car sales in 2030.

what All marketing professionals know is that price is a factor. There are plenty of people (really don't take my word for it just ask around, look at the census bureau statistics) who would LIKE to get the bells and whistles, the latest thing in the car they purchase ---- but they can't afford it. Given the economic situation we are in now, and will be in for a number of years... their are and will be a lot of people who will not be in a position to get what they would LIKE to have but what they can afford. In this situation the cost of the prospective purchase becomes a factor.

You are not arguing with me you are arguing with the analysts at Bloomberg and JD Powers.


.. running short of time. that's all for now.

[txlibdem]

29. I guess I am arguing with the "ANAL-ists" then

You may have at one time or another watched FOX News, even if by accident. They have people who call themselves "analysts" there, too. They make their arguments using "projections" and their idea of what the "facts" are. Hell, they even have their own version of history, fer cryin' out loud. It's my opinion that the "analysts" on Fox need to remove their heads from their "analyst" area but that's just me and I can't speak for you. I'm hoping that your OP scenario and the one I describe are different in that you disagree with the Fox News "analysts" while agreeing with the Bloomberg.

You seem really married to the premise of the OP and I don't particularly have a strong opinion other than that "analysts" are no better at forecasting the future than you or I. So I'll just agree to disagree.

All I feel strongly about is that I am never --NEVER-- going to buy a gasoline powered vehicle again in my life. I will be driving an all-electric car or truck. If, unlike me, you feel strongly that you want to go a different way then go in peace.

:hi:
:pals:

[JohnWxy]

33. comparing the entertainers on Foxnews, universally recognized (by thinking people) as brokers of

bullshit and down-right liars to the legitimate analysts of auto industry trends at J.D. Powers and Bloomberg New Energy is nonsense.

I do not think I can estimate growth in sales of any kind or car better than the guys at Powers and Bloomberg who have specialized in estimating market acceptance of various products.

{BTW the proposition that anybody can draw conclusions on complex subjects as good as the trained specialists and people who have spent years studying a subject can, is exactly the proposition that FoxNews, and the GOP sell to the suckers. Meanwhile they feed them disinformation and use some not-so-subtle techniques of suggestion to convince those same suckers what they 'think' on a subject.}

I do not, however, agree with the assumption held by the people at Powers and Bloomberg that gas prices are going to remain stable. That comes from the EIA estimates which to me seem incredible given the rapidly growing economies of China and India and the rapidly rising standards of living in those countries.

But if you agree with that assumption Powers and Bloomberg (along with another group I may or may not have mentioned in OP) then their estimate of electric cars reaching 9% of new car sales in 2020 and 22% of new car sales in 2030 cannot be ignored (at least not without some good rationale). And as I stated in OP, 22% of new car sales would mean that electrics would be about 7.5% of the total fleet. And if they achieved a 60% reduction in gas consumption (on average) that would translate into a total reduction of gas consumption of about 4.5% percent .. in 20 years.

[JohnWxy]

28. continuing... you said:

from you post:

"When gasoline goes up? The effect on small car sales was just as dramatic as the effect on SUV and other gas guzzlers, but exactly the opposite. Here in the Dallas-Fort Worth area you had to look hard to find a fuel efficient vehicle on dealers lots when gas was $4, while at the same time the used car lots were filled to the brim with traded in SUVs and guzzlers. The number of people who took the bus and the train went way up, standing room only on routes that were practically empty when gas was under $3. I don't remember hearing anyone saying that people were getting fired (nobody I know did). It was when the crooked banks' fraudulent activities finally hit the fan that the economy actually tanked so I don't agree about what caused (and will cause) jobs to be lost. Auto sales here were booming (but only for small cars) that's all I know. Maybe things were different where you were? "



"When gasoline goes up? The effect on small car sales was just as dramatic as the effect on SUV and other gas guzzlers, but exactly the opposite"...??

...Auto sales here were booming (but only for small cars) that's all I know. Maybe things were different where you were." ???


You make these statements as if you have contradicted my point. This is of course absurd. Everything I have said above has been to point out that when gas prices go up ..

1) people buy more fuel efficient cars, and

2) that people will spend less on all of their purchases (especially the more expensive ones, such as a car).


YOu are trying to play the idiot. You are pretending that you could not understand my whole point, that being that when gas prices go up people will look for more fuel efficient cars to buy, and when times area difficult people will be constrained to spend less for what they buy - thus they will be less inclined to spend money on an expensive electric car when they can get fuel efficiency (even if it is not as great as with an electric) at a lower price - such as a Corolla - even if it doesn't have some of the extras that the electric may have.


Many auto analysts before these estimates from Bloomgerg and Powers, have expressed concerns or doubts about how the electrics such as the Volt and Leaf will sell because of the high price tags. In fact the reason the government is offering tax credits to buyers of electrics of up to $7,500 is to help the sales of these cars so the technology can 'get off the ground'. They are concerned that without the tax credit lowering the price to the consumer too few people will buy these cars to get the technology widely adopted in a reasonable time.


You mention the Leaf version 2. Now, has Nissan stated when that will be for sale. Note that the buyers of the original Leaf are waiting several months for delivery of their cars. I don't know if any Leafs have actually been delivered yet? Will the predicted range of Leaf 2 affect sales of Leaf 1?

[txlibdem]

30. I'm trying to play the idiot

Now how can I judge that without bias? I didn't go down this road, but now that you've broached the subject...
I've already posted here that I am infallible, superior in every way to the "analysts" you tout in the OP, gifted by God On High with clarity of insight unparalleled in the history of Mankind. But, yeah, I'm also an idiot.

I'm an idiot who loves electric cars.

I can't wait till VW brings their Plug-in Hybrid Crossover model to the US market. I can't wait till the Ford Focus EV hits the dealers lots here in Dallas and everywhere else. I have a Nissan Leaf on order but I haven't gone forward with that yet so it's clear that I also love the Leaf.

I'm also an idiot who wonders what $4 a gallon gas like we had in 2008 would have been like here *if electric cars had been available* then. (I do not count the over-$100k Tesla and Tango --that's just not realistic for 99% of folks here). I'm an idiot who believes that we will see $4 per gallon gas again, and damn soon, but I'm just idiot enough to hope that the big banks and housing bubble collapses aren't happening at the exact same time again --as they were in '08-- so I don't believe that people will be living in cardboard boxes and rushing out to buy whatever middle-east-oil burning P.O.S. has the lowest sticker price, regardless of the total effect on their budget and their wallet in the future.

I guess you are right. I am an idiot.

:yourock:

[JohnWxy]

32. I DID NOT SAY YOU ARE AN IDIOT. I SAID YOU WERE PLAYING THE IDIOT...

You are misrepresenting what I said AGAIN.

1. YOU ARE ATTEMPTING TO ACCUSE ME OF CALLING YOU AND IDIOT. THIS OF COURSE IS A PATENT MISREPRESENTATION OF MY STATEMENT THAT YOU "ARE PLAYING THE IDIOT". PLAYING THE IDIOT IS FAR FROM BEING AN IDIOT. I AM SAYING YOU ARE USING CRAFT AND GUILE.

2. NOT ONLY DID I NOT SAY YOU ARE AN IDIOT..... I DID NOT SAY YOU WERE AN IDIOT FOR BEING GUNG HO ABOUT ELECTRIC CARS...ANOTHER BLATANT DISTORTION OF WHAT I SAID.

WHAT I DID SAY WAS YOU WERE 1) PLAYING THE IDIOT...BY PRETENDING YOU DIDN'T GET MY POINTS BECAUSE YOU MADE STATEMENTS WHICH WERE CONSISTENT WITH WHAT I HAVE BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG...BUT YOU WROTE THEM AS IF YOU THOUGHT THEY WERE CONTRADICTIONS OF MY CONSISTENT POINTS.


To repeat myself, to make sure nobody gets faked out here..

you posted:

"When gasoline goes up? The effect on small car sales was just as dramatic as the effect on SUV and other gas guzzlers, but exactly the opposite"...??

...Auto sales here were booming (but only for small cars) that's all I know. Maybe things were different where you were." ???

to which I said:

You make these statements as if you have contradicted my point. This is of course absurd. Everything I have said above has been to point out that when gas prices go up ..

1) people buy more fuel efficient cars, and

2) that people will spend less on all of their purchases (especially the more expensive ones, such as a car).


YOu are trying to play the idiot. You are pretending that you could not understand my whole point.

then you proceeded to "tell" me what I had been asserting all along.


...... Now regarding your last comment in which you seem to imply that that I am hoping for another Credit Collapse.... This of course is 'Bull'. And I don't appreciate your trying to imply I don't care if,.... or hope for another Deregulation Disaster (unregulated mortgage lending, unregulated banksters) so we can have a more severe or more dragged out recession.

I am not hoping for that. THat is why i made this post to try to alert people to the fact that the risk of deeper recession from increasing energy prices is real and we should do something to avert it. And that waiting for electric cars to reduce gasoline demand is not going to work in the near term as it takes a long time to get enough electric cars on the road to make much of a difference.



YOu are contending that the we could see gas go to $4.00 a gallon and NOT get a deeper recession because we would need to have another Credit Collapse like the current one (which, by the way, we are not out of yet) for that to happen.

Our current unemployment rate is 9.5% (before gas prices peaked in July of 2008 it was 5.5%). Gas prices peaked in July of 2008 because people stopped buying it at that price. THis was a few months before the Credit Catastrophe actually exploded upon us. What I AM contending is that when gas prices go somewhere between $3.50 to $4.00 a gallon it will begin to impact gasoline consumers as well as businesses. I think at about $4.00 a gallon we will have a big problem. I think it will lead to people cutting back on all consumer expenditures, not just for gas and the reduced consumer spending could be enough to cause businesses to get nervous again and not continue to hire more people. In fact this might lead to businesses (if sales fell off) to laying off more people and we could see unemployment start back up again.

Now I could be wrong...maybe it will be at $4.25 a gallon. But maybe it will impact the economy at $3.75. I of course don't know for sure. But, I feel confident that oil/gas prices ARE heading upwards. Maybe it won't be until 2013 that we will see $4.00 gas. It might take a slightly higher price or a little bit longer (I hope we have more time than till 2012). But I am convinced that higher gas prices are coming... and in not very many years (2 to 5 year most likely). If I am warning of this that doesn't mean I am hoping for it. It means I would hope people would do something to keep higher oil prices from happening.

How do we keep this from happening? By rapidly producing alternative fuels to add to the supply of gasoline and hold down gasoline price increases. One way to do this is to use Natural gas to make methanol. This can be blended with gasoline and increase the volume of fuel available. (T. Boone Pickens has said we should make cars to run on natural gas. It makes more sense to make methanol from the natural gas so we do not have to build all the infrastructure to store and supply compressed gas to millions of drivers. Replacing gasoline powered cars with natural gas powered cars also takes quite bit of time to have a large enough impact.)

..maybe I am wrong about gasoline prices going up over the foreseeable future. Maybe the analysts at J.D. Powers and Bloomberg Energy are right in assuming stable gasoline prices. But I personally think it's too big a gamble to take that chance. I'd rather we prepared for that possibility.

[txlibdem]

35. You focused on the last sentence of my post to the exclusion of all else

Although the last line did seem to imply that you called me an idiot in your previous post that was not my intent. If you read my post you will see that it was I who called myself an idiot. That is not an insult to you but an adaptation that I use to score with the babes:

"Self-deprecation the key to the art of seduction
Men with a self-deprecating sense of humour have the best chance of charming a woman into bed."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/2463131/Self-deprecation-the-key-to-the-art-of-seduction.html

Or to throw a little levity into an overly-serious conversation...

Do I think you're rooting for another economic collapse? I'm not sure how you'd jump to that conclusion. I said that $4 gasoline will not bring about another collapse such as we had in '08 because there is no banking fraud bubble and housing bubble crashing at the same time --the real cause of the collapse. I think $4 gas will be bad in a lot of ways but I do not think that you are getting a tub of popcorn just so you can watch the carnage and I especially do not believe that people will suffer economically as bad as you say.

You stated, "Our current unemployment rate is 9.5% (before gas prices peaked in July of 2008 it was 5.5%). Gas prices peaked in July of 2008 because people stopped buying it at that price. THis was a few months before the Credit Catastrophe actually exploded upon us." That is just plain wrong. The current recession started in 2007:

(December 2008) "The National Bureau of Economic Research said Monday that the U.S. has been in a recession since December 2007, making official what most Americans have already believed about the state of the economy ."

...

Employers have trimmed payrolls by 1.2 million jobs in the first 10 months of this year. On Friday, economists are predicting the government will report a loss of another 325,000 jobs for November.
http://money.cnn.com/2008/12/01/news/economy/recession/index.htm

"The U.S. Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission reported its findings in January 2011. It concluded that "the crisis was avoidable and was caused by: Widespread failures in financial regulation, including the Federal Reserve's failure to stem the tide of toxic mortgages; Dramatic breakdowns in corporate governance including too many financial firms acting recklessly and taking on too much risk; An explosive mix of excessive borrowing and risk by households and Wall Street that put the financial system on a collision course with crisis; Key policy makers ill prepared for the crisis, lacking a full understanding of the financial system they oversaw; and systemic breaches in accountability and ethics at all levels."<19><20>"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_crisis_(2007%E2%80%93present)

At the same time, I'm not buying your view that people are going to forgo all comfort and conveniences and start driving the cheapest cars they can find. That just doesn't pass the logic test. My family budget will lose another $100 a month due to $4 gas. That's not going to change my decision of what car to buy. What will change my vehicle choice is the fact that 60% to 75% of the money we spend at the gas pump goes to people and governments that are openly hostile to the United States. When you buy gasoline or diesel you are paying the salaries of each and every terrorist in the world. That is what will cause me to purchase an electric car instead of a crappy little econo-box fossil fuel burner vehicle.

I've written several times that you and I just think differently, and that's OK. I gave my reasons for my choices. You countered with your reasons and then seem to extrapolate your opinion to the rest of the car buying public.

The choices are:
Do you want your money to go to fund terrorists?
Do you want to drive a nicer car if it costs you the same per month as a lesser model?
Do you want 60% of your "fuel" bills to go to foreign countries or would you prefer that money stay here in the US? (trade imbalance)
Do you want to support and encourage green jobs here in America?

I stand firm in my belief that the next episode of $4 gasoline will play out far differently than 2008 because of the different economic situation and the availability of electric cars.

I also have a more favorable opinion of electric vehicle penetration in the market:

PHEV proliferation into Massachusetts was a key performance measure for this report. Under most conditions, PHEVs proved to be a highly favorable alternative to gasoline vehicles. Within 50 years, PHEVs were predicted to range between 85% and 100% of the market.

(chart on page 6 of the report shows PHEVs constituting between 85% and 100% of the total fleet by 2060, 40% to 55% by 2030.)

http://www.wpi.edu/Pubs/E-project/Available/E-project-102208-153838/unrestricted/PHEV_Proliferation.pdf

[JohnWxy]

39. too much to cover here at one time, but I'll give it a go..

anybody would have inferred from your comments that you were implying that I was 'pulling for' a recession when/if gas hits $4.00 a gallon. I'm not going to take time to repeat pasting your comments but my inference was one that anybody would have made .....and that IS the implication you intended.

But let's move on...

You said with reference to my previous comment:

"You countered with your reasons and then seem to extrapolate your opinion to the rest of the car buying public."

The only thing I 'extrapolated' is that 1) we will very likely see oil/gas prices continue to increase and not at a slow pace. I believe, as do many others (more knowledgeable than I, commodities analysts, market professionals, economists) that the price of gas will rise significantly in just couple of years. Now, I and I would guess, virtually the entire compliment of economists in the 'free world' are convinced that a gasoline price at arouond $4.00 would be 'bad news' for our economy. That is, it would stifle economic growth, and very likely would cause us to slide back into a deeper recesssion..

Your pastes of sources saying the recession started even sooner than I observed that the gas price peaked (I was not saying the recession started then. I was using that as an indicator of where people draw the line as far as what they find tolerable in gas prices.) only helps make my case. Thank you. People were reacting to Gas prices - because the recession had already started - before the Banking Industry-Credit Collapse hit. You will note, I stated that unemployment had started moving up earlier in 2008 (or if I didn't, I had it in there originally, but deleted it so as to keep my comment from becoming an encyclopedic entry) but the point was people were reacting to the price of gas before the Credit Catastrophe hit and made the unemployment situation much worse.

The Banking - Credit Collapse made whatever slow down was in progress much much worse. The fact is we are not out of the Trickle Down Disaster yet. We are still trying to drag ourselves out of it. That is why the economy is still very sensitive to an increase in gas prices - even more than it was in 2008 when people cut back on buying gas - BEFORE the TRICKLE DOWN DISASTER got fully into progress with the Banking Industry - Credit Collapse fully realized.


You said: "I'm not buying your view that people are going to forgo all comfort and conveniences and start driving the cheapest cars they can find. That just doesn't pass the logic test."..

Does not pass what logic test??. LOL. Virtually every economist in the business, every business observer, analyst, market-watcher, -player or investor knows that when gasoline hits $4.00 that represents a significant cost to the average person (I am not talking about people who are doing well and I'm happy for you that you are. But, for a large part of the population). When gas hits that price you will see people not only cut back on gas usage but also on all other consumer expenditures which they can cut back on. This is not my 'opinion', 2008 offers data which makes this fact abundantly clear. When people cut back on their spending, businesses see less revenues and start cutting back on hours first, then they start laying people off. Thus, the tepid recovery we are now seeing could die, and we could see a return to a deeper recession.


http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Unrest-in-Egypt-Unsettles-nytimes-4027218866.html

With the United States economy seeming to gain a foothold only recently — government data released Friday showed the economy grew by 3.2 percent in the fourth quarter of 2010 — a sustained increase in oil prices could choke growth, analysts said. It could also undermine the more general optimism that lifted the Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index by 1.5 percent in January, after a 12.8 percent jump in 2010.

“A one-dollar, one-day increase in a barrel of oil takes $12 million out of the U.S. economy,” said Jason S. Grumet, president of the Bipartisan Policy Center, a Washington research group. “If tensions in the Mideast cause oil prices to rise by $5 for even just three months, over $5 billion dollars will leave the U.S. economy. Obviously, this is not a strategy for creating new jobs.”

...now to translate that from a price per barrel to a price per gallon, a $5 increase in the barrel price of oil would be equivalent to a price of $3.27 a gallon. Note that $3.27 a gallon is significantly LESS than $4.00 a gallon.



You can make the statement that "the next episode of $4 gasoline will play out far differently than 2008 because of the different economic situation and the availability of electric cars."

.....but overwhelmingly, economists and market professionals do not share your nonchalant attitude when it comes to our economy and the rising price of gas.

Regarding the availability of electrics, availability involves how much people can afford. And more people can afford less in 2010 than in 2008.



As for your reference at the end of your comment to the paper by Hunain Kapadia, Ishrak Khair, Tanvir Madan, Andrew Teixeira entitled:

"The Plug-in Hybrid Electric Vehicle: Proliferation and Impact on Society and the Environment"

that paper was subtitled: An Interactive Qualifying Project Report Submitted to the faculty of WORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Bachelor of Science

...... I don't know if these students ever got their Bachelors degrees from the "WORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE" but their paper was dated October 2008. The research performed by analysts at Bloomberg New Energy and J.D. Powers has the benefit of economic data accumulated through the Trickle Down Disaster of 2008 an onward. I would submit that the addditional economic data gives the analysts at Bloomberg and Powers an advantage .. not to mention their professional experience and expertise ....as compared to four pre-baccalaureate students at the "Worcester Polytechnic Institute".

I haven't had time to read over the paper, so I don't know what assumptions they used or what data samples they drew on but they did not have the advantage of two more years of economic data to look at that the analysts at Bloomberg and J.D. Powers had. .....Now on this we apparently DO disagree, but as for me, just based on the level of experience alone, I would put my money on the professionals at Bloomberg and J.D. Powers when it comes to making economic estimates, in this case pertaining to electric cars.)


.....and so there is no mistake, I shall repeat myself...I am not "anti"-electric cars. I do believe people need to be realistic about their expectations. It doesn't help anybody to kid ourselves about what is likely to be achieved by a given technology or when these achievements can be realized.

[txlibdem]

41. "I'm not anti-electric vehicles ... but electric vehicles are gonna SUCK!"

Battling "experts," differing interpretations on the who, what, when and where of the recent economic collapse, and a totally opposing view of how intelligent consumers are; it seems like we will never agree on the future of electric vehicles.

I'm going to take the high road (somebody has to). Let's make a bet, shall we? When gas hits $4 a gallon we'll co-author an OP on how it is impacting sales of electric vehicles, the change (or lack thereof) in consumer attitudes towards electric cars at that time. Perhaps it should be a poll: "now that gas is $4 are you more/less likely to purchase an electric vehicle." The loser has to post a crow-eating OP in EE and GD.

If more people vote that they would be *less* likely to buy an EV then you win!

[JohnWxy]

46. battling "EXPERTS"?? you are calling four undergraduate engineering students experts on the subject

of the economic viability of electric cars which is in part an economic analysis and comparing them to Jason Grumet and the actual, professional analysts at J.D. Powers and Bloomberg New Energy?? This is beyond asinine!


http://www.grist.org/article/grumet/">Jason Grumet, is the president and executive director of the http://bipartisanpolicy.org/projects/national-commission-energy-policy">National Commission on Energy Policy, a bipartisan group of 20 energy experts created in 2002 and an advisor to Obama?! Obama selected him as an advisor because he respected his expertise with regard to environmental issues.


The paper you referenced was by four undergraduate students at WORCESTER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE. Their paper was submitted "In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Bachelor of Science"!!!!

.....and you are claiming these guys (did they even get their degrees in engineering?) are EXPERTS?????

and that whatever their knowledge of this issue, your saying it can actually be compared to the expertise of the analysts at Bloomberg New Energy and at J.D. Powers?????? As I said in my comment you responded to, just based upon the level of experience you can't compare 4 undergraduate students to the professionals at Bloomberg, J.D. Powers, or to Jason Grumet.

LOL!!!!

I will cheerfully repeat the quote of Jason Gromet from my comment to which you are responding with such pathetic bullshit (that this is just a matter of a difference of opinion):

“A one-dollar, one-day increase in a barrel of oil takes $12 million out of the U.S. economy,” said Jason S. Grumet, president of the Bipartisan Policy Center, a Washington research group. “If tensions in the Mideast cause oil prices to rise by $5 for even just three months, over $5 billion dollars will leave the U.S. economy. Obviously, this is not a strategy for creating new jobs.”

to which I added:

...now to translate that from a price per barrel to a price per gallon, a $5 increase in the barrel price of oil would be equivalent to a price of $3.27 a gallon. Note that $3.27 a gallon is significantly LESS than $4.00 a gallon.

IN OTHER WORDS IF $3.27 A GALLON WOULD SERIOUSLY COMPROMISE OUR ABILITIY TO CREATE JOBS AND GROW THE ECONOMY - WHAT THE HELL WOULD $3.75 A GALLON OR $4.00 A GALLON DO?? I'LL TELL YOU WHAT IT WOULD DO: IT WOULD PUT US INTO A DEEPER RECESSION OR EVEN A DEPRESSION.

THIS IS NOT A SUBTLE POINT. THIS IS NOT JUST A MATTER OF (MY) OPINION. AS I SAID BEFORE, ALL THE MARKET OBSERVERS, TRADERS, PROFESSIONAL MONEY MANAGERS AND ECONOMISTS KNOW THAT GASOLINE AT $3.50 TO $4.00 A GALLON WOULD MEAN WORSE TO MUCH WORSE TIMES FOR OUR ECONOMY. THIS WOULD THEN MEAN CONSUMER PURCHASES OF EVERYTHING - BUT ESPECIALLY BIG-TICKET ITEMS - SUCH AS PLUG-IN ELECTRICS AND PURE ELECTRICS (e.g. Leaf & that $100,000 elrctric sports car) WOULD SEE THEIR SALES GO IN THE TANK.

AND, don't be childish. Just because I am pointing out what the economists and others mentioned above already know does not mean I am "anti"-electric cars. THats nonsense. THis is about being realistic and not kidding ourselves.

Repeating myself, again, if we want to see electric cars introduced without further delays because of economic recession or depression we need to employ what approaches can minimize or prevent oil price increases sooner than in twenty years. The best approach we have for doing that is to supply some of our transportation fuel as alernative fuels, in particular ethanol and methanol (made from natural gas). Expanding our production of ethanol (and importing from other sources e.g. Brazil) and methanol holds the promise of keeping the adoption electric cars from being delayed by economic downturn.

[JohnWxy]

40. I have never stated my "opinion" about what I would pay for in a car. And I therefore never

'extrapolated' it.

You state:

"I've written several times that you and I just think differently, and that's OK. I gave my reasons for my choices. You countered with your reasons and then seem to extrapolate your opinion to the rest of the car buying public."

Nobody could be this stupid. So I conclude this is an attempt to confuse the reader.

This is not about your "choices" or my "choices" (which I never stated). this is not about my opinions it's about observed and documented behavior of people during economic recessions.

I will repeat what I said above. THIS IS NOT ABOUT WHAT I WOULD PAY FOR IN A CAR. This is not about what YOU WOULD PAY FOR IN A CAR. YOU HAVE REPEATEDLY STATED WHAT YOU OR YOUR WIFE LIKE OR WOULD PAY FOR IN A CAR (heated seats, voice activated navigation) and YOU 'EXTRAPOLATED' (your use of the word) THESE PREFERENCES TO THE "CAR BUYING PUBLIC". YOU WERE THE ONE WHO STATED THAT YOU WOULD BE HAPPY TO PAY EXTRA TO GET A CAR THAT DOES NOT BURN GAS. And then YOU extrapolated YOUR PREFERENCES to the 'car buying public'.

I have never stated what my preferences are in a car or what I would be willing (or able) to pay for in a car.

What I DID say is that when gas goes to $4.00 a gallon people will be hurt economically. They will start driving less, using less gas and they will start reducing spending in general. This is not my opinion. This is a matter of observed, documented fact. Look at 2008 at what happened when gas hit $4.00 a gallon and unemployment was at 5.5%. Now, our current situation, thanks to the Trickle Down Disaster is worse. We are at 9.6% unemployment and employers are scared to hire additional full-time workers.


I don't think there is an economist in the world that doesn't think $4.00 a gallon gas would be bad for our economy and would very likely force a contraction (negative growth) in the economy. This would be because people would cut back on spending not only on gas but on almost every other kind of consumer purchases. It would likely stop job growth and increase unemployment. But it most certainly would kill off our recovery and not be good for sales of higher up front cost cars. My point is based upon economic data. When unemployment increases. When people are worried about being laid off or losing their jobs they do not go out and make big expenditures. And if they do buy a car (perhaps because their old car 'died') they are much less likely to spend additional money for a more expensive car even if there might be savings (if there would be) down the road. People are more worried about having money to spend on essentials so they reduce their expenditures where-ever they can. Thus, if buying a car they would tend to spend only enough for the basics and not spend more for things they might like to have but can live without.

[txlibdem]

43. Jibber-jabber. Your last sentence does the thing your first paragraph says you never do/did.

You state, "Thus, if buying a car they would tend to spend only enough for the basics and not spend more for things they might like to have but can live without."

To quote one of your heroes: now there you go again.

If that sentence is not extrapolating your preference onto America-at-large then I don't know what is. Why would people spend only "for the basics?" And by that you mean a gasoline vehicle with a low purchase price? A stripped down model that does not have heated seats or navigation --but comes with the most extravagant and wasteful item ever put into a car: an internal combustion engine.

Why would people fail to think even a single week ahead into the future: they are going to have to buy gas for that "cheap" vehicle. Gas is getting more and more expensive and in your scenario it's already topped $4 a gallon. But someone buying a car at that time would not think about how high the price of gasoline is, nor how high it might become in the future. You assume that people can't think a month in advance, three months in advance, and realize that this "cheap" vehicle is going to cost them far more than they think because of fuel costs and maintenance costs.

Why would someone fail to realize that "Vehicle A" will cost them $220 per month, while "Vehicle B" which comes with a lower sticker price will end up costing them at least that much if not more but does not come with as much cool stuff or cool features. You seem to think that people are going to look only at the sticker price when it is clear that when the economy is tight, when people are worried about keeping their job, when budgets are stretched, people will *always* calculate how much money *total* will be going out and will not merely focus on a single line item of the budget.

But you can continue to live in your world where you don't say the things you clearly have said. No skin off my nose. See my post where I challenge you, once gasoline hits $4 a gallon, to co-author an OP with a poll in it asking if the price of gas is going to make people *less likely* or *more likely* to purchase an electric vehicle. Take the challenge --if you dare.

[JohnWxy]

44. Maybe you are not pretending to be an idiot. NO, you still prefer to "play the fool". My meaning

was obvious.


You state,

"Thus, if buying a car they would tend to spend only enough for the basics and not spend more for things they might like to have but can live without."

If that sentence is not extrapolating your preference onto America-at-large then I don't know what is (my emphasis_JW). Why would people spend only "for the basics?" And by that you mean a gasoline vehicle with a low purchase price? A stripped down model that does not have heated seats or navigation --but comes with the most extravagant and wasteful item ever put into a car: an internal combustion engine.

YOu continue to want to ignore that in a recession/depression as we are in now, many more people are unemployed or are worried about becoming unemployed.

My statement: "Thus, if buying a car they would tend to spend only enough for the basics and not spend more for things they might like to have but can live without."

was obviously referring to the situation of a significant number of people who are unemployed now and who would be unemployed if gasoline prices went up from here to between $3.50 to $4.00 a gallon.

Here is a more complete excerpt from my comment (including trhewhole paragraph from which you took my statment you excerpted) which makes it clear that I was talking about how people adjust their expenditures in a recession:

"When people are worried about being laid off or losing their jobs they do not go out and make big expenditures. And if they do buy a car (perhaps because their old car 'died') they are much less likely to spend additional money for a more expensive car even if there might be savings (if there would be) down the road. People are more worried about having money to spend on essentials so they reduce their expenditures where-ever they can. Thus, if buying a car they would tend to spend only enough for the basics and not spend more for things they might like to have but can live without."

to the contrary of your statement that I was applying my "preferences" to "America-at-Large"...I was NOT talking about "preferences" neither mine nor anybody elses. I was talking about people who, for reasons of economics, do NOT feel they can afford to spend more dollars for as I said 'extras' which "they might like to have but can live without "

This obviously is not stating what I would do. I am repeating what everybody who works for a living knows and who has faced unemployment, or anybody who sells merchandise for a living knows. When times are tough, when unemployment is high, people are worried about maintaining their incomes. Anybody who sells cars, specifically, for a living knows that when times are tough it's a lot harder to sell more expensive cars or the optioned-up models.

You are either pretending to not know this or perhaps you were born wealthy and don't have a clue what it is like to work for a living (and to worry about losing your job in a recession).

Keep in mind we have been talking about those people who can afford to buy a new car. Many people cannot afford to buy a new car and buy used cars only. Note that they might PREFER to get a new car but their finances won't permit them to buy a brand new car.

[JohnWxy]

34. Corrections to range are in order for sure. But I made another error on range issue

correction to range noted. You didn't say at what temperature the A/C produced the noted range decrement. So I checked a road test of the Leaf in Car and Driver magazine.

I found the December (2010) issue of Car and Driver which had good articles and road tests of the Leaf and Volt.

They state in the article that "Nissan claims the the Leaf can go 100 miles on a full charge based on the LA4 test cycle, which is the one used for the EPA city number and doesn't employ hard acceleration nor sustained speeds above 40 mph."

They also state re A/C: "on an 88 degree afternoon, the Leaf predicted a 24 mile drop in range if we were to use the climate- control system" .. apparently there is a computer on board which tells you how you are doing re range as you are driving, depending on what accessories you have on (no doubt bases computation of range on the electrical draw of the accessories).

They also stated that "Based on our time with the Leaf, we expect it to comfortably do about 70 miles on a charge." ...note they operated the car with the A/C off.

If the 24 mile drop in range is compared to a 100 mile range (based upon LA4 test cycle) that would be a 24% 'hit' to range. If 70 miles range is based upon something more like real world driving conditions with real world driving in traffic, - without the A/C on - then the percentage 'hit' to range for A/C on in 88 degree weather would be 34%. Now, in Texas in 100 degree weather you can assume the draw from the A/C would be a good deal greater and the reduction in range would be larger. How much I certainly can't estimate.

...my other error re Leaf's range

Average commute distance not proper measure of range requirement

.... I also made an error using average commute distance as a basis for determining adequacy of the Leaf's range. Upon further thought it became apparent to me that the prospective buyer will be considering what his possible MAXIMUM ONE TRIP DISTANCE would likely be. That means, that trip to grandmas, or to your dentist who moved his office accross town, or a vacation drive would be the metric against which the Leaf's range would be measured. Keep in minde the distance there and back has to be used to compare to the Leaf's range. So a trip of 50 miles, one way, would be too much. also, consider that people aren't interested in gambling with running out of charge. They would want a cushion on that trip distance, so perhaps a trip of greater than 40 miles - one way - could be enough to rule out the Leaf. I cannot begin to estimate what the average driver would consider his maximum needed one trip range would be.

the Leaf, a 'second' car for most buyers

This leads me to conclude most buyers of the Leaf are probably going to be thinking of it as their second car. In fact you have mentioned repeatedly what your wife likes in a car as if the Leaf would be your wife's car. Obviously then, you too are considering the Leaf as a 'second' car. Now, while the Leaf being used as a second car certainly makes the range hurdle a lower one to clear, it also reduces the number of buyers who would be able to afford the Leaf. Paying $33,600 (C&D Dec 2010 article) for the one car you own is one thing. Spending $33,600 for a second car is something else again. What proportion of car buyers are in a position to spend $33,600 (or $26,100 if they get the tax credit) for their second car?

I think this also cuts down the number of people who are likely to buy a Leaf.

[txlibdem]

36. Nissan is installing Level 3 and fast chargers at all its dealerships

So your calculation might be right if there were no Nissan dealers in the area or on the way.

Consider doing a google search: Public EV Charging Station

You'll see that they're already starting to be installed; New York, D.C., Oregon, Philadelphia, Norwalk, Connecticut ...
Then there's Washington State:

"The project by the DOT and the state Department of Commerce aims to install stations every 40 to 60 miles, bridging gaps between urban islands of charging infrastructure. A separate, federally funded project called The EV Project will bring 900 electric vehicles and more than 2,000 charging stations (many of them for home use) to the central Puget Sound area."

http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2010/07/04/1509504/state-to-bring-electric-vehicle.html

You may be right that a significant number of people will not buy an electric vehicle till they feel confident that charging isn't going to be an issue. McDonalds, Starbucks, malls, public parks, etc., have been identified as sites where EV charging stations will be widespread.

Here's something I didn't know: BP and Amoco gas stations will be getting EV chargers. (source: http://blogs.cars.com/kickingtires/2010/10/bp-to-install-ev-charging-ports.html)

Even some Best Buy stores will be getting EV chargers. (source: http://www.egmcartech.com/2010/10/12/ecotality-to-install-blink-ev-charging-stations-at-12-best-buy-stores/)
=========================================
And all that from just a 2 minute google search...

[txlibdem]

37. Oh, and to be fair to Chevy Volt fans, Chevy dealers to get EV chargers as well

"SPX Corporation (SPW), Chevrolet's home charging installation partner, will deliver and install hundreds of Level II 240V ChargePoint charging stations to the Chevrolet dealers. Coulomb has already shipped ChargePoint charging stations to hundreds of customers worldwide, including its first Chevrolet dealership in Irvine, Calif. Additionally, Chevrolet has installed Coulomb ChargePoint networked charging stations in front of their corporate headquarters in Detroit for use by employees and guests."

http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Newsfeed/Article/124994350/201101191015/Chevrolet-to-Offer-Coulomb-Technologies-Electric-Vehicle-Charging-Stations-to-Chevrolet-Dealerships.aspx

Since I mentioned that Nissan Leaf owners will be able to recharge at the Nissan dealers, I thought it only fair to mention that Chevy is also doing the same thing for Volt owners.

[JohnWxy]

38. Note a charge from a 240 Volt line will take 7 hours, 120 Volt up to 19 hrs (C&D Dec 2010)

NOw, is anybody going to leave their $40,000 Volt or $30,000 Leaf at a public charger unattended? In other words, what I am saying is, I guess you will have to stay there and keep an eye on your car for several hours.

Please note that: "High voltage rapid chargers can do an 80% charge in about half an hour, but such stations will be rare for years to come, and Nissan warns of significant battery degradation if this method is used often." (C&D, Dec 2010)


I don't know about this but does a charging station accommodate one car at a time? If so, then if someone was ahead of you your wait time would be longer than just the time required to complete a charge.

It's nice to hear that the State of Washington (your first link) is installing charging stations, I don't know if this is representative of the other 49 states.

http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2010/07/04/1509504/state-to-bring-electric-vehicle.html

Gov. Chris Gregoire recently announced that the state would spend $1.32 million in federal economic stimulus money to install the stations along the freeway.
~~
~~

State officials requested a $650,000 federal earmark for 2011 to help install more stations on public property, but a U.S. House subcommittee on Thursday, July 1, advanced a bill without the funding.

Without the money, the state can't complete the networks chargers, Doyle said. Some vehicles, like the Chevy Volt, can't use quick-charge stations, making the network of medium-speed stations more important.

Read more: http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2010/07/04/1509504/state-to-bring-electric-vehicle.html#ixzz1CefFSNV9

This is true there are charging stations being installed or are planned for installation, but does anybody have an estimate of how many there will be in say 5 yrs? I don't really think a charging station at the Nissan dealer (do you have to get there 7 hours before closing?), or at few retailers, given the practical considerations mentioned above (charge time, how many cars accomodated at once - additional wait time, how do you handle situation if someone is there already, take a number and recieve automated call on cell when previous car is close to being done?) I still think the charging situation will for quite some time be a significant negative situation.

...I don't really think the fact that some charging stations are in the planning changes the realistic estimate that electrics will take significant time to make any significant contributions to gas consumption reduction and GHG reductions.

[txlibdem]

42. Charging times, leaving vehicle unattended

I remember this one time... it was a long time ago and my memory is fuzzy... but I seem to recall seeing someone park and leave a very expensive car unattended for hours at a time. Oh, wait. That was yesterday! You are once again spouting right wing anti-electric vehicle talking points: FUD (fear, uncertainty, doubt). Was that your intent?

Charging times for an electric vehicle have a parallel in your beloved oil-company-owned gasoline: the more you use, the more you have to put back in --but no more than that.

You are not going to need to put in 100 miles-worth of electrons if you only drove the car 50 miles (or 30, or 70). You only put back in what you took out. Therefore, charging times will depend on how "empty" the battery is, how much you need to put back in.

In addition, there are three different EV charging standards and each of them takes a different amount of time than the others:
Level 1: The "standard" 110v plug that you plug your toaster into, takes the longest amount of time to recharge your battery.
Level 2: Just like your electric oven or electric clothes dryer, this uses 220v. Takes half the time as Level 1 charging.
Level 3: Not all EVs will have the plug needed for Level 3 charging. It uses 480v and high current DC. Charges in less than 26 minutes even if the battery is completely empty.

Just like when you go to the gas station, JohnW. If your gas gauge is on "E" you will have to put in more gas to get back to a "FULL" tank than if it's sitting at the half mark or three-quarters mark. And, similarly, it takes longer to fill up your gasoline engine car if it's empty.

The main difference for me: my "gas station" is going to be inside my garage. You will have to make a special trip, maybe drive well out of your way, to get your "fill up."

[JohnWxy]

45. YOu are correct if you drove 50 miles you would only need a half charge or 3.5 hrs for 50 miles LA4

driving (see below). I am not interested in dissuading anybody from buying any kind of car, Leaf, Volt or otherwise. Just interested in providing accurate info applicable to people's actual likely driving experiences.

regarding driving range, driving conditions make considerable difference.

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/car/10q4/2011_nissan_leaf_sl-short_take_road_test

"And state-of-charge is always a concern. On an 88-degree afternoon, the Leaf predicted a 24-mile drop in range if we were to use the climate-control system. We managed 97 MPGe (miles per gallon equivalent), or 2.9 miles per kilowatt-hour, with the air conditioning off during a 19-mile run around town that included a short highway stretch. Based on our time with the Leaf, we expect it to comfortably do about 70 miles on a charge."


....okay, so if you are driving in 88 degree weather, with A/C on, Car & Driver testers got 70 miles on a charge. That sounds pretty good for most people's commutes. For winter urban driving Nissan says figure on 62 miles(see below). Note, if you get 70 miles per charge then the charge time is 7 hrs (240 Volt) per 70 miles or 3.5 hrs for 35 miles (or 17.5 miles round trip). As a commuter car 17.5 miles round trip sounds adequate for most people.


NOte that I observed that people in evaluating the Leaf are probably NOT going to use their average commute time as a basis for evaluating the adequacy of the Leaf's range but their likely maximum range needed..as when on vacation or for that drive to grandma's.

NOTe I also observed that this does NOT apply to those who will be considering the Leaf as their second car. I also noted that that appears to be the way you would look at the Leaf as you seem to be referring to the Leaf's features with reference to your wife's preferences. I suspect a large part of the Leaf buyers will be planning to use it as their second car. In this application, average commute time may be appropriate as a basis for evaluating the adequacy of the Leaf's range.

.....But remember what I noted above about average commute times and "bad" commute days as discussed in article referenced above. 'Bad' commute days can be twice as long, time-wise, as normal days. Sitting in traffic in hot weather will still drain your battery although not as badly as driving at say 45 mph would. But their would be extra draw on the battery so maybe a commute of twice as long (time wise) would translate into a battery drain of 1.3- 1.45 the normal commute. so a round trip commute of 35 miles might become more like a commute of 49 miles, requiring a charge time of almost 5 hrs. This is not a problem when charging at home but what about those public charging stations?

Public charging stations - number of cars accomodated & wait times

If you are considering using a public charging station just the time to charge YOUR car is NOT the only consideration. There still is the question of how many cars can be accomodated by a charging station and the possible wait-till- charge time involved. IF there are two cars ahead of you, you might not get to START charging for 5 to 7.4 hours or more (or perhaps 10 hrs if there are any full charges ahead of you). Then, if you leave your car there as apparently you would (maybe in west Texas you can do that, prairie dogs and jackrabbits can't steal cars), is somebody coming with you to give you a lift back, or are you going to ride a bike back (oh, scuuuze me, ride a horse back, ha-ha-ha-heh-uhm.:shrug:). These are some things to consider when charging at a public charging station (as they become available).

West Texas, will somebody steal my car here?...

http://www.nissanusa.com/leaf-electric-car/range-disclaimer/index#/leaf-electric-car/range-disclaimer/index">Here is the estimates for different kinds of driving conditions from Nissan:

your Nissan LEAF™ is built to go 100 miles on a single charge*how far you'll go will depend on a number of variables

DISCLAIMER *Based upon EPA LA4 test cycle conducted in laboratory tests. See http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fe_test_schedules.shtml . Gradual loss of capacity in battery will result with time and use. Actual range will vary depending upon driving/charging habits, speed, conditions, weather, temperature, and battery age.

depending on the conditions, when your battery is new your range may vary anywhere from 138 - 62 miles. range is most affected by:Climate control – the more extreme the temperature is outside, the more energy used to heat or cool the cabin.

Speed – higher speeds require much more energy to overcome air resistance.

Driving style – smooth acceleration and deceleration will extend range while aggressive acceleration and deceleration will decrease range.

Cargo and topography – heavy cargo and driving up steep long inclines will reduce range.

there are an infinite number of range scenarios*, based on many variables. here are just a few, starting with the EPA LA4 test cycle:EPA LA4 test cycle: 100 milesThe Nissan LEAF has been tested under the EPA Urban Dynamometer Driving Schedule, a laboratory test commonly called the LA4 test cycle, which represents city driving conditions. Top speed is 56.7 mph and average speed is 19.59 mph. Ambient temperature can vary from 68 - 86 degrees. Climate control is off. The Nissan LEAF easily achieved 100 miles.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ideal driving conditions: 138 milesSpeed: Constant 38 mph

Temperature: 68 degrees

Climate control: Off

Driving on a flat road at a constant 38 mph means less air resistance, and therefore less energy use. And at 68 degrees, there's no need for climate control, extending the range even further. The result: a range boost up to 138 miles.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Suburban driving on a nice day: 105 miles Speed: Average 24 mph

Temperature: 72 degrees

Climate control: Off

The average speed in this scenario is 24 mph; common when commuting and running errands. The ambient temperature is 72 degrees and the climate control is off. Not using the air conditioner and driving at slower speeds mean less energy use and a little extra range.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highway driving in the summer: 70 miles Speed: Average 55 mph

Temperature: 95 degrees

Climate control: On

Averaging 55 mph on the highway, in 95 degree weather, with the air conditioning on high may produce range figures like this. Higher speeds require more energy to overcome air resistance. Running the air conditioner means energy that could be used to increase range instead goes to cooling the car.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross-town commute on a hot day: 68 miles Speed: Average 49 mph

Temperature: 110 degrees (sounds like Dallas in the summer!_JW)

Climate control: On

Driving from a rural area into the city at an average 49 mph with the a/c on high may produce this range. Under these conditions, climate control combined with higher-speed driving produces increased energy consumption, hence the effect on range.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Winter, urban stop-and-go, traffic jam: 62 miles Speed: Average 15 mph

Temperature: 14 degrees

Climate control: On

Though the average speed is only 15 mph with stop-and-go traffic, the 14-degree temperature means the heater is doing a lot of work so you spend considerable time and energy heating your car rather than moving forward. Despite these conditions, it would still take more than 4 hours to run out of charge!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DISCLAIMER *All above scenarios based on new battery life. Estimated range based upon specific variables studied through computer simulations.

[Kennah]

19. Price of gas, and a long term view ...

... are going to prove very important.

If gas drops to $1.19 a gallon, people will revert to their old ways. However, I don't see that in our future. How high will it go? I dunno, but as the price of gas climbs, people are going to react and evolve.

[txlibdem]

22. You got it.

Consumers behavior isn't set in stone. Their behavior changes with the times and with the cost of the various options that they have to choose from.

You did a good job of cutting to the core of the issue. If gas were $1 a gallon, electric cars would still be a good idea because of the reduction in pollution they offer. Now that gas is back to $3 per gallon, electric cars are competitive on a total cost of ownership basis with comparable gasoline cars. When gas gets to $4, or even $5 per gallon as the "experts" say it will, how many consumers will be lining up at the dealership to buy gas guzzlers?

Remember when gas got to $4 back in 2008? Used car lots were filled to the proverbial rafters with large SUVs because everyone and his brother were trading them in and buying fuel efficient cars. Too bad there were no electric cars that "regular people" like us could afford (I think the Tesla was on sale for $100,000). What will happen with electric car sales when gas gets back to $4 a gallon? I have a feeling that a whole lot more people will be interested in buying an electric vehicle but I guess we'll have to wait and see.

[txlibdem]

31. Annual vehicle sales in the USA: 10 million to 17 million vehicles

So, from a certain perspective, 9% of all auto sales in the US will be electric vehicles by 2020 is pretty darn good:
Low estimate: 900,000 electrical vehicles per year
High estimate: 1,530,000 electrical vehicle sales a year --over 1.5 million electric vehicle sales a year

Casting our eyes to 2030, 22% electric vehicle sales
Low estimate: 2,200,000 electrical vehicle sales a year
High estimate: 3,740,000 electrical vehicle sales per year --3.5 million electric vehicles per year

Maybe these "pessimistic" numbers from the OP aren't so bad after all... US auto and light truck sales have been over 10 million since 1965. Some years have seen sales totals as high as 17 million cars and trucks (from 1999 through 2006).
(source: http://wardsauto.com/keydata/historical/UsaSa01summary/)
and the data is at http://wardsauto.com/keydata/historical/UsaSa01summary.xls