Tesla, GM, & Toyota Battle for Customers

The electric vehicle battleground at the end of September saw a major increase in the number of PHEVs and BEVs being sold during the 3rd quarter, and a continuing shift away from Hybrids, such as the original Prius.

US Sales of Electric Vehicles, Including HEVs 2016
Month	Hybrid (HEVs)	PHEVs & Extended Range Vehicles	Battery (BEVs)	Totals	Total PHEV & EV
January	20,967	3,137	3,576	27,680	6,713
February	24,371	3,909	4,424	32,704	8,333
March	28,756	5,290	7,815	41,861	13,105
Total 1Q	74,094	12,336	15,815	102,245	28,151

April	28,988	5,842	6,266	41,096	12,108
May	30,573	5,619	6,526	42,718	12,145
June	27,679	6,094	7,678	41,451	13,772
Total 2Q 2016	87,240	17,555	20,470	125,265	38,025

July	32,633	6,525	7,762	46,920	14,287
August	32,206	6,372	8,601	47,179	14,973
September	31,286	6,037	10,032	47,355	16,069
Total 3Q 2016	96,125	18,934	26,395	141,454	45,329


YTD Year 2016	257,459	48,825	62,680	368,964	111,505
YTD Year 2015	296,375	29,169	51,267	376,811	80,436
% change	-13.1%	67.4%	22.3%	-2.1%	38.6%

Total sales of light vehicles YTD				13,044,080
BEV % of total sales				0.48%
Data from Electric Drive Transportation Association

Overview of different types of electrified vehicles:

BEVs are vehicles powered entirely by battery power.
PHEVs use the battery to travel the first 35 miles, then switch to an internal combustion engine to extend its range.
HEVs are essentially battery-assisted vehicles that use the internal combustion engine to power the car. Batteries don’t provide the motive power for the vehicle.

Observations:

Tesla also sold cars in Europe and elsewhere. Total Tesla BEV sales for the 3rd quarter were 24,500 vs the 15,425 sold in the US.
There appears to be a shift away from HEVs to PHEVs. Toyota has indicated it may ditch the HEV Prius for the PHEV version.
Year to date, PHEVs have had the largest percentage increase in sales, three times that of BEVs, but BEV sales were 22% greater than PHEVs.
BEV sales are still less than 1/2 of one percent of total light vehicle sales, which is the same as last year.
Since 2010, a total of 268,785 BEVs and 242,203 PHEVs have been sold.
Since 2010, federal and state governments have used tax payer money to subsidize plug-in vehicles to the tune of $3,500,000,000.
Tesla has received $390,000,000 from its sale of California Zero Emission credits.

Until now, PHEVs and BEVs have been a niche market, comprised of the rich and famous, environmentalists and technology early adopters.

The introduction of the Bolt by GM, and Tesla’s Model 3, priced at $35,000, and still eligible for the $7,500 tax credit, could determine whether battery powered vehicles will go mainstream.

Government policies are supporting battery-powered vehicles. These policies include the subsidies mentioned above, Zero Emission Vehicle requirements, as well as mandates for increasing fleet mileage requirements from today’s 26 mpg to 54 mpg in 2025. See, EPA Mileage Gap & Paris Climate Accord.

EVs have three important impediments.

Insufficient range, compared with ICE vehicles
The high cost of batteries, which results in the high cots of EVs
Time required to charge batteries

PHEVs eliminate range anxiety, and partially reduce the cost penalty for the battery.This could be why they are growing in popularity.

The real issue is whether EVs and PHEVs can become a replacement for internal combustion engine (ICE) powered vehicles, without subsidies and mandates.

If not, they are a detriment to the economy, and have imperceptible environmental benefits.

* * * * * *

NOTE:

It’s easy to subscribe to articles by Donn Dears.

Go to the photo on the right side of the article where it says email subscription. Click and enter your email address. You can unsubscribe at any time.

If you know people who would be interested in these articles please send them a link to the article and suggest they also subscribe.

© Power For USA, 2010 – 2016. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author, Donn Dears LLC, is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Power For USA with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

(5)

Please follow and like us:

14 Replies to “Tesla, GM, & Toyota Battle for Customers”

When considering any kind of electric vehicle you have to consider battery price (and what production does to the environment ), what production of the electricity to charge the batteries does , and what the increased demand does to an already stressed distribution system .

Donn on October 11, 2016 at 10:52 am said:

Excellent comments.
Taken to the extreme, power generation capacity would have to be increased to provide the electricity for recharging batteries. Recharging batteries at home would place an extra burden on transformers in the distribution system. These are some of the additional costs that no one mentions.

The procedures for admitting any production in the markets seems to be the same, it is about standards. Fuels, food, drugs, vehicles…etc. Didn’t such industrial materials to this large extent of sale pass the required standards?

Donn on October 12, 2016 at 9:02 am said:

Not sure what you intended.
It’s about market forces being distorted by subsidies. Can EVs and PHEVs go mainstream without large subsidies?
- SMIPP Ltd. on October 12, 2016 at 10:02 am said:
  
  My note was about some environmental issues mentioned in Steven Guess comment.
  You have a perfect abbreviations here that I saved them all because frankly speaking I may forget them after some time.
  Basically these cars, like any other materials, cannot be marketed without meeting required standards. This was my point. As you know industrial products are not necessarily clean.
  The scale of current use, it seems there are many reasons that can lead to success or even failure of these products. We have to wait and see what happens.
  In the case of subsidies, what I know is that the current dominant technologies were not able to grow without subsidies.
  Your records here are useful as a reference. Thanks for the post.

SmippLtd
As far as basic material standards being met I have yet to see anything the environmental greenies like being subjected to the the same standards as just about anything else .
As for subsidies may I ask what subsides that Daimler had developing his engine or for that matter Henry ford.

Donn on October 12, 2016 at 1:35 pm said:

Thanks for your comments.
SMIPP Ltd. on October 12, 2016 at 4:08 pm said:

As for the U.S. subsidize the automotive industry, it is clear that direct subsidies are limited to environmental issues (paying tax rebates for EVs). Indirect subsidies are varied in number and application.
Oil, which powers most automobiles, is subsidized by billions per year. So without the oil subsidies, the car market would crash.
A number of protective measures are in place to help US manufacturers over foreign makers, but those protections aren’t subsidies, and they are ineffective when the foreign makers have local factories.
As the US has bailed out the US makers with direct subsidies before, the implied “too big to fail” gives a direct benefit to the makers, as they are a lower credit risk if the US government steps in to cover shortfalls, as they have before and can easily do again.
So though not a direct subsidy, the implied backing of the US government keeps their operating costs lower than they would otherwise be.
- Donn on October 12, 2016 at 4:32 pm said:
  
  The oil industry doesn’t receive as many subsidies as you infer.
  
  In fact, the charge that oil industry receives billions in subsidies is bogus.
  
  The largest energy subsidy as reported by the IEA were for discounts given to consumers for the purchase of gasoline in countries such as Saudi Arabia and Venezuela.
  
  Depletion allowances are a major tax benefit, that people frequently call a subsidy. Depletion is similar to depreciation, where, when a reserve has been exhausted a new reserve must be found. Depreciation is important to provide the funds for replacing worn out equipment.. Depletion is to provide the funds to find a new reserve to replace the worn out reserve.
  
  In 2013, U.S. energy tax related subsidies went 20% for fossil fuels, 45% for renewable energy and 29% for energy efficiency. These percentages have remained about the same since 2000.

“In 2013, U.S. energy tax related subsidies went 20% for fossil fuels, 45% for renewable energy and 29% for energy efficiency. These percentages have remained about the same since 2000”
Renewables, by weight of quantity in use are nothing against the dominant energy sources. Much of 29% for energy efficiency, properly and fairly, belongs to fossil fuels due to the scope of their performance.
Unlike some people, I believe that the 29% for energy efficiency should go to higher number because fossil fuels still have more potentials to greater efficiencies so are entitled to generous support.

Donn on October 12, 2016 at 7:10 pm said:

Thanks for your comment.

Just curious , what are the subsides on ev/hybrid ? How about on “green ” power ?

Steven Guess,

The title of this post would not let us go far more than what I tried to write here in regards to your question marks:

1. Paying tax rebates for EVs.

2. Keeping in mind the above referred 45% subsidies for Renewables.
Let’s see what is going on in California the Renewables vanguard in U.S. power generation.
Despite all the legislation that California has passed in an attempt to stimulate the growth of Renewables the state has not progressed at all. The percentage of Renewables in California’s energy mix is still about the same as it was in 2010 and the percentage of low-carbon generation in the mix has decreased slightly (fuel efficiency). The California “Duck Curve” also remains a matter of concern. Renewables and imports did not contribute significantly.
Renewables show a small positive correlation with total generation because the pre-noon increase in solar generation happens to coincide with the morning increase in demand, although the post-noon solar generation decrease does not. Base load nuclear is of course uncorrelated with total generation.
About correlating individual generation sources with total generation we have:

Thermal 0.83
Hydro 0.74
Renewables 0.19
Imports 0.03

Renewables are expensive and the amount of subsidies will never be able to cover the required capital and running costs. We tried to establish a 10 MW solar, just could forget It. It was not cost-effective.
For your personal issues, yes.

Steven Guess on October 11, 2016 at 10:45 am said:

When considering any kind of electric vehicle you have to consider battery price (and what production does to the environment ), what production of the electricity to charge the batteries does , and what the increased demand does to an already stressed distribution system .
- Donn on October 11, 2016 at 10:52 am said:
  
  Excellent comments.
  Taken to the extreme, power generation capacity would have to be increased to provide the electricity for recharging batteries. Recharging batteries at home would place an extra burden on transformers in the distribution system. These are some of the additional costs that no one mentions.
SMIPP Ltd. on October 12, 2016 at 4:47 am said:

The procedures for admitting any production in the markets seems to be the same, it is about standards. Fuels, food, drugs, vehicles…etc. Didn’t such industrial materials to this large extent of sale pass the required standards?
- Donn on October 12, 2016 at 9:02 am said:
  
  Not sure what you intended.
  It’s about market forces being distorted by subsidies. Can EVs and PHEVs go mainstream without large subsidies?
  - SMIPP Ltd. on October 12, 2016 at 10:02 am said:
    
    My note was about some environmental issues mentioned in Steven Guess comment.
    You have a perfect abbreviations here that I saved them all because frankly speaking I may forget them after some time.
    Basically these cars, like any other materials, cannot be marketed without meeting required standards. This was my point. As you know industrial products are not necessarily clean.
    The scale of current use, it seems there are many reasons that can lead to success or even failure of these products. We have to wait and see what happens.
    In the case of subsidies, what I know is that the current dominant technologies were not able to grow without subsidies.
    Your records here are useful as a reference. Thanks for the post.
Steven Guess on October 12, 2016 at 11:44 am said:

SmippLtd
As far as basic material standards being met I have yet to see anything the environmental greenies like being subjected to the the same standards as just about anything else .
As for subsidies may I ask what subsides that Daimler had developing his engine or for that matter Henry ford.
- Donn on October 12, 2016 at 1:35 pm said:
  
  Thanks for your comments.
- SMIPP Ltd. on October 12, 2016 at 4:08 pm said:
  
  As for the U.S. subsidize the automotive industry, it is clear that direct subsidies are limited to environmental issues (paying tax rebates for EVs). Indirect subsidies are varied in number and application.
  Oil, which powers most automobiles, is subsidized by billions per year. So without the oil subsidies, the car market would crash.
  A number of protective measures are in place to help US manufacturers over foreign makers, but those protections aren’t subsidies, and they are ineffective when the foreign makers have local factories.
  As the US has bailed out the US makers with direct subsidies before, the implied “too big to fail” gives a direct benefit to the makers, as they are a lower credit risk if the US government steps in to cover shortfalls, as they have before and can easily do again.
  So though not a direct subsidy, the implied backing of the US government keeps their operating costs lower than they would otherwise be.
  - Donn on October 12, 2016 at 4:32 pm said:
    
    The oil industry doesn’t receive as many subsidies as you infer.
    
    In fact, the charge that oil industry receives billions in subsidies is bogus.
    
    The largest energy subsidy as reported by the IEA were for discounts given to consumers for the purchase of gasoline in countries such as Saudi Arabia and Venezuela.
    
    Depletion allowances are a major tax benefit, that people frequently call a subsidy. Depletion is similar to depreciation, where, when a reserve has been exhausted a new reserve must be found. Depreciation is important to provide the funds for replacing worn out equipment.. Depletion is to provide the funds to find a new reserve to replace the worn out reserve.
    
    In 2013, U.S. energy tax related subsidies went 20% for fossil fuels, 45% for renewable energy and 29% for energy efficiency. These percentages have remained about the same since 2000.
SMIPP Ltd. on October 12, 2016 at 5:51 pm said:

“In 2013, U.S. energy tax related subsidies went 20% for fossil fuels, 45% for renewable energy and 29% for energy efficiency. These percentages have remained about the same since 2000”
Renewables, by weight of quantity in use are nothing against the dominant energy sources. Much of 29% for energy efficiency, properly and fairly, belongs to fossil fuels due to the scope of their performance.
Unlike some people, I believe that the 29% for energy efficiency should go to higher number because fossil fuels still have more potentials to greater efficiencies so are entitled to generous support.
- Donn on October 12, 2016 at 7:10 pm said:
  
  Thanks for your comment.
Steven Guess on October 12, 2016 at 8:56 pm said:

Just curious , what are the subsides on ev/hybrid ? How about on “green ” power ?
SMIPP Ltd. on October 13, 2016 at 5:15 am said:

Steven Guess,

The title of this post would not let us go far more than what I tried to write here in regards to your question marks:

1. Paying tax rebates for EVs.

2. Keeping in mind the above referred 45% subsidies for Renewables.
Let’s see what is going on in California the Renewables vanguard in U.S. power generation.
Despite all the legislation that California has passed in an attempt to stimulate the growth of Renewables the state has not progressed at all. The percentage of Renewables in California’s energy mix is still about the same as it was in 2010 and the percentage of low-carbon generation in the mix has decreased slightly (fuel efficiency). The California “Duck Curve” also remains a matter of concern. Renewables and imports did not contribute significantly.
Renewables show a small positive correlation with total generation because the pre-noon increase in solar generation happens to coincide with the morning increase in demand, although the post-noon solar generation decrease does not. Base load nuclear is of course uncorrelated with total generation.
About correlating individual generation sources with total generation we have:

Thermal 0.83
Hydro 0.74
Renewables 0.19
Imports 0.03

Renewables are expensive and the amount of subsidies will never be able to cover the required capital and running costs. We tried to establish a 10 MW solar, just could forget It. It was not cost-effective.
For your personal issues, yes.

Tesla, GM, & Toyota Battle for Customers

14 Replies to “Tesla, GM, & Toyota Battle for Customers”

Enjoy this post? Please spread the word :)

Introduction