CNET Cites Various Studies Claiming Electric Cars Are The “Next Big Thing” – Video

8 months ago by Steven Loveday 44

CNET looks at various studies related to electric cars and deduces that we are finally at a point that EVs can and will become mass market. The report says:

“The day may be coming when only the wealthy and the foolish avoid EVs.”

MIT combined data from varied areas, real world MPG, real-time GPS tracking, temperature data, and battery range to deduce that most current trips are compatible with today's electric cars.

MIT combined data from varied areas, real world MPG, real-time GPS tracking, temperature data, and battery range to deduce that most current trips are compatible with today’s electric cars.

Brian Cooley, CNET reporter, explains that electric cars aren’t a novelty anymore. He cites several long(er) range EVs that are now hitting the market, including the Chevrolet Bolt, Jaguar i-PACE, Hyundai IONIQ electric, and of course – the upcoming Tesla Model 3.

Today, less than one percent of new car sales are EVs or plug-in hybrids, but these new offerings, education, exposure, and a myriad of other factors, are working to change that.

Range issues are disappearing quickly, as shown by an MIT study that researched several factors, to conclude that most of today’s trips are EV-compatible. The study shows that those that aren’t, could be handled through ride-sharing.

Bloomberg estimates that by 2040, 35 percent of new cars sold will have a plug, and that by 2025, EVs will have a lower cost of ownership than that of their ICE counterparts.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

44 responses to "CNET Cites Various Studies Claiming Electric Cars Are The “Next Big Thing” – Video"

  1. leafowner says:

    Sorry – but IMHO — there will be a rapid shift after the Model 3 launch and all the other big auto makers watch as their share quickly erode without a compelling alternative. An EV price war will then take place and adoption will occur faster than anyone expected. Battery technology is also moving ahead way faster than expected. My guess is the 35% of new car sales is by 2025 (not 2040) and that by 2040 it may be upwards of 90% as the infrastructure and economies of scale for gas and making gas engines compliant to even stricter emission standards erodes and prices rise quickly.

    1. Alaa says:

      It is already 35% in Norway.

      1. Kdawg says:

        But in a real country.

        (Ooohhh, good thing Norway has a lot of ice to take care of that sick burn!)

        i kid, i kid ๐Ÿ˜€

        1. Fred says:

          When Norway says it’s the nr. 1 country in the world (they don’t say, because they behave like adults, not 5year olds), they have reason to say it! It is simply the best place to live on earth. I’d move in a heartbeat if I could!

          1. Ziv says:

            I would LOVE to visit Norway! Or stay for 4 or 5 months even. But having grown up just south of the border with Canada, there is no way on earth that I would live that far north again! In December days are less than 6 hours long in the areas around Oslo!

    2. EVA-01 says:

      The only way I see numbers like that happening by 2025 is if people continue to lease vehicles.

      Then again, leasing a car isn’t owning a car nor do I consider it a sale.

      1. waldo says:

        why?

        1. Brandon says:

          Most analysis I’ve seen point to right around 8% market share by 2025. Keep in mind this is worldwide, not U.S.

        2. EVA-01 says:

          Why what exactly?

      2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

        Sales figures for passenger vehicles do include leases, whether you think they ought to or not. It’s the industry standard.

        1. EVA-01 says:

          It would would make more sense if automakers are reporting sales from dealers buying their cars. Automakers don’t sell direct after all, they sell to dealers that are nothing more than resellers to the general public.

          As much as I despise the middle men, they don’t lease vehicles from automakers to sell later. They either buy them or finance them, both things that I consider sales to automakers.

    3. przemo_li says:

      It would be safer to say that serious investment will be in full swing by 2025.

      Panasonic is more then twice as big as next competitor, but still can manage only a bit below 180$ on pack level, and that’s cheapest in industry.

      Others have many multi-billion, multiyear investments ahead even if they want to meet CURRENT Tesla levels of sales & pack sizes.

      So there will be lot’s of models on market, most small volume, but boatload of investment for battery pack production investment to increase those cars production volumes.

      Tesla with gigafactory finished and operational wont be able to reach even 1% of car sales globally, just by sheer size of annual global car sales!

      There will be lag after everybody is involved into equivalents to Bolt/Model3 and when actual sales skyrocket.

    4. leafowner says:

      Ok – 35% share by 2025 may be ambitious — but I firmly believe we will be well over the projected 8%. I’d be happy if it hit 20%.

  2. James says:

    The Model 3 is going to change everything. The water seems calm now, but when the Model 3 starts crushing cars like the A4 and 3-series the way the Model S crushed the luxury segment, the hurricane will be coming on shore and there will be no turning back the clock. I think the reason Bolt sales have been slow is that ppl like me are holding off for the Model 3. Why pay same price for a Honda Fit clone when you can get a 3-series for a little more money?

    I think about a concept like the Zoe Sport. You simply can’t make a gas-powered car like the GTI go that fast. Those kinds of cars are going to be a dime-a-dozen in five years and who will want to by a sluggish gas-burner at that point?

    I personally have a $3,800 GM credit that I could use for a new Bolt lease, but even though I don’t have a Model 3 reservation I just can’t quite pull the trigger on the Bolt w/ the Model 3 so close. That should tell Chevy something.

    1. Chris O says:

      Model 3 definitely seems to be casting a long shadow with Bolts piling up at dealerships trying to shift them at discounts.

      It’s like you say: at the same price people will prefer a 3-series over a Fit, on top of which come the differences in long range practicality between Bolt and Model 3. GM’s hope that an early release Bolt would eat into Model 3’s reservation lists increasingly looks like a pipe dream.

      1. Kdawg says:

        “Bolts piling up at dealerships trying to shift them at discounts.”
        ———
        This is a false narrative.
        Let’s wait longer than the first 2 months of sales (which also happen to be the worst 2 months for EV sales), and reaches the rest of the country, to see how sales pans out for 2017.

        GM is on target to hit 20-30K for 2017 which is what most expected.

        On another site, one of the posters mentioned how they got Bolt instead of waiting for the Model 3, even though they were a reservation holder.

        1. Chris O says:

          Actually selling 1300 in January and 900 in February (with inventory reportedly increasing!) doe not put Bolt on track for the 25-30K a year GM was reportedly shooting for.

        2. Ziv says:

          kdawg, cars dot com inventory of Bolts, both on lots and being delivered, finally hit 2,010 this morning. First time in 4 months that the number went over 2,000. I guess we can take that 2 different ways. One, that Bolts are going to start to take off now. Or two, Bolts are dribbling out of Orion.
          I think the Bolt is an excellent car, but it has a lot of things pushing sales down.
          First, it is a Chevy. A LOT of people think Aveo when they hear small Chevy car. Chvey has no cachet and Tesla is rolling in it.
          Second, it looks kind of dorky, which is a self-inflicted wound Chevy didn’t seem to mind making.
          Third, gas is cheap and electricity is going up in price slightly.
          Fourth, the DCFC network is lame compared to the Supercharger network, and again, lacks cachet.
          Fifth, after 4 months of sales, there are fewer Bolts in the pipeline than there are Chevy dealers. Yes, they are only being sold in a handful of states, but these are the best states for electric car sales.
          I think the III is going to eat the Bolts lunch. GM built an excellent car but they didn’t build the buzz needed to make it the car people really want to buy.
          I love my Volt but I don’t think GM really thinks of selling a lot of electric cars as a priority.

    2. Kdawg says:

      Audi A3 & A4 probably not the best examples (at least for the US) since each only averages about 2500/month.

      When Model 3s start stealing sales from Camry, Accord, Cruze, Focus/Fusion, etc. then heads will pop up.

      At the Model 3’s current price, that may or may not happen. Depends if people attempt to stretch their wallets again to get into a Tesla.

  3. Alaa says:

    “and that by 2025, EVs will have a lower cost of ownership than that of their ICE counterparts.”

    What do they smoke? From day 1 the cost of ownership was lower!

    1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      Poorly worded. The writer probably meant lower purchase price.

      1. SparkEV says:

        Depends on how they classify “counterparts”. For example, SparkEV post subsidy was going for slightly less than SparkGas in same trim in CA. But even outside CA, SparkEV acceleration is quicker than Ford Fiesta ST that cost $4K more.

        I know what you’ll say: GM was losing money, because SparkEV should cost billion dollars each. If you believe that, that’s all the more reason why SparkEV is such a great value.

        1. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

          Good grief, Sparky, give it up. The Spark EV was a compliance car aka a “test market” car, sold significantly below cost. Your refusal to believe that reality does not actually change that reality.

          And nobody ever claimed it cost GM a billion dollars per car to make the Spark EV, or even within a few orders of magnitude of that cost. If you want us to take your posts seriously, then don’t post such obvious nonsense.

          1. SparkEV says:

            You keep insisting that GM was losing money at any price, so I put billions of dollars. If you don’t think billions, how much do you think SparkEV should cost? Remember, SparkEV is pretty much SparkGas with battery that’s only 2 kWh bigger than iMiev that cost thousands less than SparkEV. Going by these numbers, I say SparkEV was not losing any money for GM.

            So I ask again for billionth time, how much do you think GM was losing?

  4. Who knew? They are just repeating the obvious, but well, we can’t hear enough of those news anyway. ๐Ÿ˜‰

    It’s difficult to have sympathy for those still buying ICE or hybrid cars.

  5. Kdawg says:

    “Electric Cars Are The Next Big Thing”
    -Captain Obvious

    1. ffbj says:

      He’s the best. His dedicated and unremitting in pursuit of pointing out the obvious is legendary.
      He’s my hero!

    2. Pushmi-Pullyu says:

      ๐Ÿ˜€ ๐Ÿ˜€ ๐Ÿ˜€

      If there were any justice, that would end the discussion.

  6. Just_Chris says:

    I love car shows, they are based entirely on the premises that everyone cares deeply about their car and makes perfectly rational decisions about what they should buy, which is why this ends with:

    “is it to do with consumer demand or regulation, that what researchers are asking now.”

    Really? I think most researchers are thinking

    “the cars work fine, they meet all the requirements for a large number of car drivers and cost less than a lot of comparable vehicles that are considered ‘luxurious’ purely because of the shape of a badge on the front of the car. Why the feck are these cars not selling more?”

    Not a question a transport modeller can answer. My personal opinion (as someone who knows nothing about taxation or behavior change) is that if a new car cost more than $50k it should be taxed at 30% unless it emits less than 75g/CO2/km or what ever the equivalent MPGe rating is in the states. That should be dropped to $30k in 2020 and $20k in 2025. The tax should be increased to 50% over $50k in 2020. I don’t actually care if people switch at that point, in my mind you either alter you behavior for the benefit of your fellow man or you pay more tax. Under that tax system a new $100k gas guzzler would cost $140k and you’d be paying $40k tax, that pays for a lot of hospitals and carbon abatement.

  7. Jay D says:

    Well, the argument that EVs can handle the vast majority of today’s trips has been true in previous EV epochs whether 1917, 1977, 1997 or 2011-2017. To customers who run the numbers, recent proof of lithium battery longevity should seal the deal despite Nissan’s first-gen flub, but the basics of ‘it looks funny’ and the dealers’ refusal to carry EVs while upselling prospects into guzzlers, that is what is keeping the adoption rate low. I too hope the Model 3 opens the floodgates of demand (after they give it a nose job). Meanwhile, my i-MiEV miles are approaching 100k, at which time the fuel savings alone will have exceeded $4000 compared to the Prius that we otherwise would’ve purchased…

  8. Brandon says:

    Quoting the article:
    Brian Cooley, CNET reporter, explains that electric cars arenโ€™t a novelty anymore. He cites several long(er) range EVs that are now hitting the market, including the Chevrolet Bolt, Jaguar i-PACE, Hyundai IONIQ electric, and of course โ€“ the upcoming Tesla Model 3.

    Not quite accurate a statement I say, because the I-Pace is not now hitting the market. It should say ‘upcoming’ like it does the Model 3, and should probably include what will be a volume seller as well: the next gen LEAF.

    These three are all going to actually be in the market by this time next year.

  9. Brandon says:

    Let’s not kid ourselves about EV adoption taking off in the next ~2 years.
    60% of vehicle sales in the U.S. are SUVs, pickups, crossovers, and minivans. So it’ll be probably the beginning of the 2020s til there are great EVs in these classes being offered on the market. It takes around 3 years (36 months) at least from concept to production.

    1. Brandon says:

      Not to mention that these vehicles need to be competitively priced. It absolutely MUST be so for adoption to really take off. I believe that’s the biggest of the factors that effect consumers decisions. There are others too, but that’s the biggest. And the single biggest thing that will affect this appears to be the price of lithium batteries, which appear to be on target to be make vehicles cost competitive with ICE vehicles around early to mid 2020s.

      Quoting this article:
      https://about.bnef.com/blog/electric-vehicles-to-be-35-of-global-new-car-sales-by-2040/

      “The studyโ€™s calculations on total cost of ownership show BEVs becoming cheaper on an unsubsidised basis than internal combustion engine cars by the mid-2020s, even if the latter continue to improve their average mileage per gallon by 3.5% per year. It assumes that a BEV with a 60kWh battery will travel 200 miles between charges.”

      1. Fred says:

        I wonder if they factored in the fact that in 10 years time, provided solid state batteries get commercialized, EVs could easily have lifespans of 300,000miles without excessive expense (shock revision and suspension bearing and bushing replacements aside) or any drivetrain replacements (no, not even the battery). This might do some interesting things to resale values and leasing fees… Is going to be interesting.

        1. Brandon says:

          I’m sure solid state batteries will do great things for EVs, but still, all these advances take time. Keep in mind that a new tech like solid state batteries will need to be throughly tested and proven before it’s used in EVs.

  10. speculawyer says:

    It is all about that oil price and that battery price.

    1) The tough thing for EVs is that I think oil prices are probably pretty stable for at least another couple years. There is still some surplus oil. Oil exporters had some OPEC discipline but that is looking weak. They are mostly desperate to sell as much as they can. And anytime the oil price goes up a bit, a lot of idled drilling & fracking equipment rusting on fields in North Dakota start getting busy again. So only a black swan event would boost oil prices in the short term (terrorist attack, war, etc.)

    2) The battery prices do seem to be (slowly) coming down. I think it will be tough to hit the $100/KWH holy grail. But some chemistry improvements, vertical integration, mass manufacturing, etc. and it might be possible.

    1. Brandon says:

      Good points.

      Battery prices have actually rather steeply declined in the last couple years. Prices almost halved (dropped 50%) from 2014 to 2016.

      https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-01-30/tesla-s-battery-revolution-just-reached-critical-mass

      Here I put the data. Numbers are $ per kWh.

      …….. 2013 2014 2015 2016
      Cells: 411 367 234 199
      Pack: 188 173 116 74
      Both: 599 540 350 273

    2. Fred says:

      People will not convert to EVs because of the oil price or because they help reduce emmisions. People will convert to EVs because they are better cars…

      1. speculawyer says:

        Indeed . . . but being far cheaper to fuel that gas cars is one of the big reasons that they are much better cars.

  11. darth says:

    Let’s not forget that VHS beat Betamax because it was slightly cheaper and the tapes could hold up to 6hrs vs 4 for beta.

    This despite the fact the beta picture quality was measurably better in every way.

    Let’s hope EVs are not the new Betamax.

    1. Jason says:

      This sort of thing amazes me. Solar is such a no brainer if you have a property to put them on, yet it has not have the big uptake I would have expected (not even mandated by governments for all new buildings).

      EV’s really go hand in hand with solar. How good does it feel to power your car, essentially for free. Every time you go down a hill or stop you are putting “fuel” back into your car.

      These are some of the selling points that don’t get mentioned enough. If EV’s help the country remove the reliance on foreign fossil fuels, then it has the exact same benefits for an individual.

  12. Fred says:

    Poppycock! 10% by 2025, 80% full BEVs by 2040 (if we realy are still driving by that time). My 2 cents. Mark my words and call (or zap, or telemind, or whatever we do by then), me back in 2040!

  13. Thomas E Moore says:

    “most current trips are compatible with *todayโ€™s* electric cars.”

    It sounds like they may have considered the new generation of 200+ mile cars, but did they consider that these cars could be fast charged on the highway if the infrastructure existed to do that?

    1. Jason says:

      Unfortunately for GM and all the traditional manufacturers, their model relies on someone else building and owning the gas station. And that’s the old chicken and egg scenario. Why would I build EV’s when there are no gas stations, or why would I build gas stations when there are no EV’s.

      Tesla understood this and built their gas stations. The next unfortunate thing for GM and traditional manufacturers is they have ego, and rather than saying “great, Tesla has the gas station, let’s use that”, they stick to their old model and (possibly) wonder why people don’t buy their long range EV. Maybe because there are still no gas stations.

      Not having checked into Tesla details, maybe there are real inhibitors for not using their gas stations, maybe not. But it seems self evident that traditional manufacturers should create a consortium to build the initial gas stations for EV’s, especially those who are using a common standard like CCS, or at least invest in the likes of charge point to accelerate things in the short term.