Environment & Energy
Related: About this forumTo Beat Tesla, China Plans To Boost Electric Vehicle Sales 10-Fold
In doing so, they will wipe out 95 percent of domestic EV makers.
The electric vehicle revolution is now as unstoppable as the renewable revolution. China understands that fact better than any other country.
Much as China did whatever was necessary to become the global leader in manufacturing and deploying both solar and wind energy, they are doing the same for electric vehicles and batteries. They became the number one market for electric vehicles last year, as their sales tripled, Europes almost doubled, and Americas flatlined.
The Chinese government is aiming at a more than 1,000 percent increase in sales by 2025, some 3 million units a year. And as Bloomberg reports, to achieve that remarkable goal, its offering subsidies that can total 60 percent of an electric-cars sticker price.
What China understands is that EVs are the cornerstone technology for low-cost, low-carbon transport AND a core enabling technology for deep penetration of renewables into the electric grid.
Indeed, in a major 2016 report, the International Energy Agency explained that electric vehicles and public transport can lead to a low-carbon mobility system while reducing investment needs by USD 20 trillion compared with current development trends in cities.....
https://thinkprogress.org/china-to-boost-electric-vehicle-sales-10-fold-211053eb032b#.jvz3zyaqs
OKIsItJustMe
(19,938 posts)[center][/center]
OKIsItJustMe
(19,938 posts)[center][/center]
kristopher
(29,798 posts)NickB79
(19,253 posts)And they're adding roughly 1.2 million vehicles per year at current rates.
OKIsItJustMe
(19,938 posts)1,000 percent lets just call that 10 times. I know, it sounds a lot less impressive, but
whenever someone starts using figures like 500 percent or 110 percent, its simply hyperbole.
In any case, aiming, and doing are two very different things. Ill bet that Tesla aims to sell 10 times as many cars by 2025.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)I'd wager that has more to do with your annoyance than anything to do with the way the numbers are presented.
OKIsItJustMe
(19,938 posts)kristopher
(29,798 posts)China is getting ready to do for battery electric EVs what they did for solar PV.
OKIsItJustMe
(19,938 posts)You lose.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)OKIsItJustMe
(19,938 posts)FWIW: EV Sales figures through August:
http://insideevs.com/electric-vehicle-sales-in-the-us-rise-by-largest-amount-ever-in-august/
[center][/center]
kristopher
(29,798 posts)All of those irrational posts about fuel cells didn't write themselves.
Warpy
(111,275 posts)a big project to decrease the pollution that is killing them.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)I don't see much of a link myself but in any case, here it is:
China's Ministry of Finance penalized Suzhou Gemsea, Higer Bus, Wuzhoulong Motors, Mychery Bus and Shaolin Bus.
By Ellie Froilan | Sep 10, 2016 07:35 AM EDT
The five renewable energy vehicle manufacturers penalized by China's Ministry of Finance mainly make buses.
(Photo : Youtube)
China's Ministry of Finance has penalized five renewable energy vehicle producers for illegally obtaining government subsidies, amounting to about 1 billion yuan ($150 million).
The five companies include Suzhou Gemsea, Higer Bus, Wuzhoulong Motors, Mychery Bus and Shaolin Bus. The companies reportedly accumulated a total of 1.01 billion yuan in subsidies in 2015 after claiming to have sold 3,547 vehicles that were actually either unfinished or unsold.
These five companies primarily make buses. One of the companies is a subsidiary of Chery Holding, the owner of the seventh most popular Chinese passenger car brand.
The ministry said the five companies would return the illegally gained subsidies. They would also be fined and disqualified for subsidies in 2016. The ministry has fined the five companies amounts equal to 50 percent of the subsidies they are accused of fraudulently receiving.
Gemsea has the most serious violations and would be removed from the country's list of automakers, according to the Wall Street Journal. The company reportedly fabricated its entire electric-vehicle-manufacturing business and did not make alternative-energy vehicles. The other four of the bus-making companies abused the subsidy program by padding their reported electric-vehicle sales.
Individual companies seeking profit violated relevant laws to cheat and fraudulently obtain financial subsidies...
OKIsItJustMe
(19,938 posts)4 years ago by Jay Cole
[font size=3]For most of us who follow the LEAF in the United States, we just assumed Nissan-Renaults original stated goal of selling 500,000 plug-in electric vehicles by 2015″ from back when they first introduced the 73 mile EV would have to fall at some point.
Who knew the number would go up?
But that is the case, as Hideaki Watanabe, Managing Director of Zero Emission Vehicles expressed the new goal at the Paris Motor Show this past week while promoting Renaults next best hope, the Zoe.
Zoe is coming out. This is going to be a big momentum as well (for the compnay). Renault-Nissan Alliance has very strong, two cars (ZoeLEAF) coming out to the road. Attractive. So EV market is going to expand. We are committed to sell a cumulative 1.5 million cars by 2016.
[/font][/font]
http://nissannews.com/en-US/nissan/usa/releases/nissan-celebrates-two-years-of-leaf-sales-with-announcement-of-u-s-battery-plant
[font size=5]Nissan Celebrates Two Years of LEAF Sales with Announcement of U.S. Battery Plant[/font]
[font size=4]-Largest lithium-ion automotive battery plant in the U.S. now assembling batteries in Tennessee to power all-electric, zero-emission 2013 Nissan LEAF-[/font]
[font size=3]FRANKLIN, Tenn. With two years of Nissan LEAF sales just completed, the company today announced the launch of the United States largest lithium-ion automotive battery plant in Smyrna, Tenn. The facility which is making battery components for the ramp-up of production of the all-electric, zero-emission 2013 Nissan LEAF early next year is one of three of its kind in the world operated by a major automaker.
Since December 2010, Nissan has delivered more than 18,000 LEAFs to U.S. customers and more than 46,000 worldwide, making it the most successful 100-percent electric vehicle in history.
Opening this U.S. plant is an important milestone in Nissans overarching strategy to foster sustainable mobility around the world, said Carlos Ghosn, president and chief executive officer of Nissan Motor Co. Nissan is the zero-emissions vehicle leader, and we are making significant strides as one of the largest producers of electric vehicles and batteries in the United States. The opening of this facility in Tennessee supports our goal of making zero-emissions mobility a reality through American jobs and American manufacturing.
The first batteries produced at the plant have completed the required aging process and are now ready to receive their first charge. The state-of-the-art facility is capable of expanding to produce modules for up to 200,000 batteries annually depending on market demand. Those batteries can serve as the power source for the all-electric Nissan LEAF and for future vehicles that could be added to the portfolio.
[/font][/font]
It was a beautiful dream:
http://www.greencarreports.com/news/1088447_nissans-ghosn-well-miss-2016s-1-5m-electric-car-sales-target
Nov 14, 2013
[font size=3]Renault-Nissan chief Carlos Ghosn has admitted the companies will miss out on his original electric car sales targets...and by quite some margin.
Ghosn has previously said that the two companies would be on track to sell 1.5 million electric vehicles by 2016.
But like so many other electric vehicle sales estimates, those projections have fallen short of the mark. According to the Financial Times (sub req.), Ghosn admits it'll take another four or five years to reach those sort of numbers.
Earlier this year, the companies celebrated selling their 100,000th electric vehicle. Most of that total was contributed by the Nissan Leaf, on sale since 2010. Since then, Renault has put four other electric vehicles onto the market, totaling around 30,000 units among them.
[/font][/font]
OK, so, what have their sales been? Are they ramping up? Will they be needing to build another battery plant to keep up?
http://insideevs.com/nissan-leaf-sales-in-us-continue-to-head-sideways-in-august/
kristopher
(29,798 posts)We can use as much of that type of foolishness as we can get.
Battery cost projections already forecast a 300km EV in head to head sticker price completion with internal combustion models by about 2020. Taking fuel cost and mx savings into account that represents a distinct ownership price advantage for EVs.
OKIsItJustMe
(19,938 posts)[font size=4]Investment increases, but consumers still need a jolt[/font]
July 3, 2016 @ 12:01 am
[font size=3]
As gasoline prices inch up from their 12-year low, the market conditions look ripe for more sales of EVs and plug-in hybrids -- and yet consumers aren't responding. And still, automakers are lining up to invest ever more in the segment.
"Consumers adore these vehicles," Britta Gross, director of advanced vehicle commercialization policy at General Motors, told an audience at the global Electric Vehicle Symposium and Exhibition here in June. "People love the quietness, the smoothness, the seamless drive."
But half a decade after the U.S. industry began introducing cars that consumers could attach to an electrical outlet instead of a fuel pump, the market remains meek. Sales of plug-in vehicles fell 5 percent in 2015 from 2014 levels. And for the first five months of this year, alternative-powered vehicles of all kinds were down 21 percent.
Through five months, the entire segment -- excluding the hybrid Toyota Prius, which is not a plug-in -- has averaged fewer than 4,800 vehicles a month in a market that's averaging 1.4 million a month.
[/font][/font]
kristopher
(29,798 posts)EVs are a disruptive technology for auto dealers already struggling with declining profits. According to my research interviews they've compensated for lost revenues from sales with a stronger emphasis on parts and service as profit centers. They (accurately) see the simplified nature of electric drive as being a force that will be the final nail in the coffin of their already unstable traditional business model.
Unfortunately for them, it's inevitable no matter what the National Auto Dealer's Association does.
OKIsItJustMe
(19,938 posts)The Sierra Club looked at the EV sales experience recently.
https://www.sierraclub.org/sites/www.sierraclub.org/files/uploads-wysiwig/1371%20Rev%20Up%20EVs%20Report_09_web%20FINAL.pdf
[font size=4]MULTI-STATE STUDY OF THE ELECTRIC VEHICLE SHOPPING EXPERIENCE[/font][/CENTER]
[font size=3]
Automakers and their affiliated dealerships both play an important role in EV inventory. To sell more EVs, automakers need to accelerate the number of EVs they manufacture and provide additional financial incentives for dealerships to sell them. Automakers also need to make a much larger number of EVs available to dealerships more evenly across each of the ZEV states and beyond. Dealerships, in turn, need to increase the number of EVs they secure from automakers and display prominently on their lots.
One way to increase EV inventory is to remove barriers through free or affordable dealer certification. Some automakers require dealers to pay certification fees, while other automakers provide dealer certification free of charge. For example, the Nissan dealership in Milford, Massachusetts told us it became certified by Nissan to sell EVs at no cost. According to our volunteers conversation with a manager at that dealership, Nissans certification requirements are online quizzes and tests taken periodically by salespeople to ensure they are informed on their EV models.
When EVs are placed alongside other models or are parked in the back of a dealerships lot, it presents an obvious barrier to consumers who may consider purchasing or leasing an EV. In order to promote EV sales, we believe it is important for dealerships to place them in prominent locations, such as in a showroom, by the side of the road, next to charging stations, or under special canopies.
A volunteer visited the Audi dealership in Wallingford, Connecticut and reported there was an EV inside the showroom with a charging station, as well as one in front of the dealership plugged-in and ready to test drive. Glick Nissan in Massachusetts told one of our volunteers that they always have two to three EVs on hand to offer test drives as well as a 240-volt charging station in front of the dealership, which is open for public use as part of Nissans No Charge to Charge program. Nissan offers two years of unlimited free public charging for all Nissan Leaf owners at participating dealerships.15 Not only do charging stations make EVs more visible to customers, but they also help build range confidence for both current and potential EV drivers because drivers know they can rely on that dealership as a place to charge up.
[/font][/font]
Yeah, OK, so it looks like some dealers do a better job than others (personally, Id like to see a comparison to the same dealers scores for conventional vehicles) but I think your suggestion of dealers intentionally sabotaging sales misses the mark. The Nissan dealers seem to be trying, yet sales are down.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)Deliberately neglecting would be most accurate.
My data comes from about 30 in-depth interviews with the principals. It isn't statistically significant, but it is used to inform the gathering of statistical data. I stand by my conclusions.
OKIsItJustMe
(19,938 posts)This spring, the Sierra Clubs Electric Vehicles Initiative organized 174 Sierra Club volunteers to visit or call auto dealerships (or, in the case of Tesla, stores) representing 13 automakers in all 10 ZEV states.² Together, these volunteers selected and contacted 308 different dealerships and recorded their experience at each via a brief online survey. We estimate that the number of dealerships included in this study represent approximately 10 percent of all dealerships whose manufacturers could sell EVs in the 10 ZEV states. This study was not designed to be statistically representative, but rather to shed light on trends in the consumer EV shopping experience in these states.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)It's interesting but it is shallow. The observed indicators they provide, however, completely support my statements above.
OKIsItJustMe
(19,938 posts)I admire your self-confidence
kristopher
(29,798 posts)A series of in depth, semi-structured interviews with knowledgeable informants are recorded, transcribed and subjected to analysis. The preliminary results are used to guide further rounds of interviews and the final results form the basis of the questions used in statistical polling.
The interview method is from the field of cognitive anthropology; combining it with statistical surveys is a more recent development.
OKIsItJustMe
(19,938 posts)You assume so much
Given your assumptions, please explain why EV sales are not just low, but have gone down.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)OKIsItJustMe
(19,938 posts)I have no particular axe to grind against EVs. I observe that they do not sell well. I believe there are a number of reasons for this, among them, their cost and perceived limited range.
I think they make sense in some applications, especially as commuter vehicles, for the roughly 52% of car owners who have the ability to charge them at home, and live reasonably close to their workplace.
I believe FCEVs will eventually be more popular with consumers, as they address consumer concerns with EVs.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)...for it is exactly the quality you've long exhibited when you refuse to address the abysmal round trip storage efficiency of hydrogen and fuel cells. If you were the honest broker you claim, you'd admit to the (disqualifying) nature of that poor performance in a world dominated by a renewable energy and ENERGY EFFICIENCY paradigm.
Now that we've dealt with your overt bias, let's get to the matter I was asking about - what assumptions are involved in my statements about the topic on EVs and dealers?
OKIsItJustMe
(19,938 posts)Last edited Sat Sep 10, 2016, 08:02 PM - Edit history (3)
You act as if storing energy chemically is my idea!
Look around you! Look inside your own body!
For eons, green plants have been converting light energy to chemical potential energy, and using that stored energy as they need it. Other life takes advantage of that stored energy. Thats why you have body fat! Its energy your body is storing for a time when external sources of energy (i.e. food) may not be readily available!
Nature works with electricity. The electric eel is an extreme example. Your nerve cells are electrochemical. Green plants transport electrons as part of photosynthesis. Why go to all the bother of breaking down H₂O and CO₂? Why doesnt nature store energy as electric potential?
[hr]
It takes around 2,000 kcal to run a human body for one day. One gram of fat is roughly 9 kcal. So, lets say 225 grams of fat will run a human body for a day.
2000 kcal is about 2300 Wh. Lets say a Li-ion battery can store 230 Wh/kg. OK, thats roughly 10 kg of batteries to power a human body for a day.
Just imagine if a bear hibernated using electricity stored in lithium-ion batteries!
Why does nature store energy chemically?
[HR]
Fat has an energy density of about 34 MJ/L. Lithium-ion batteries may have an energy density as high as 2.63 MJ/L.
Why does nature store energy chemically?
[HR]
Why do you assume you know more than nature about storing energy?
kristopher
(29,798 posts)...that earned your presentations on hydrogen and fuel cells my scorn.
Hydrogen and fuel cells increase the generating capacity we would need to build by about 60%. The task is daunting enough now without deliberately making idiotic choices. However, hydrogen is beloved by the industries like coal and nuclear that thrive on driving increased energy consumption.
OKIsItJustMe
(19,938 posts)All you can see is one facet of any problem, and anyone who may disagree with you, you feel deserves your scorn.
Why dont electric cars sell? As a true believer, you know that it cant be anything about the cars themselvesthey are superior in every way, therefore, it must be the sales force.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)Your inability even admit to the ramifications of HFC inefficiency marks you with the"True Believer" label you are trying to project onto others.
OKIsItJustMe
(19,938 posts)http://outfog.com/2013/04/11/fuel-cellsin-space/
Regenerative fuel cells provide a pathway for energy storage systems that are game changing for NASA, Valdez said.
The big benefit of fuel cells is the amount of energy they can store. A typical battery can store at most 24 hours worth of energy for a vehicle like the ATHLETE. This is fine for a place like Earth where the Sun shines in 24-hour cycles, but on the Moon where a day lasts 29 Earth days, getting energy to recharge a battery possess a problem. Fuel cells have a higher energy density than traditional batteries.
The problem with fuel cells is that they arent as efficient as traditional batteries. That is, youll only get about 65 percent of the energy you store in a hydrogen fuel cell back in a usable format. Making these fuel cells more efficient is a big goal Valdezs team has.
Were starting to creep up closer to the battery systems, said Valdez. Eventually batteries wont have any advantage over fuel cells.
[/font][/font]
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20130010767
Regenerative fuel cells provide a pathway to energy storage system development that are game changers for NASA missions. The fuel cell/ electrolysis MEA performance requirements 0.92 V/ 1.44 V at 200 mA/cm2 can be met. Fuel Cell MEAs have been incorporated into advanced NFT stacks. Electrolyzer stack development in progress. Fuel Cell MEA performance is a strong function of membrane selection, membrane selection will be driven by durability requirements. Electrolyzer MEA performance is catalysts driven, catalyst selection will be driven by durability requirements. Round Trip Efficiency, based on a cell performance, is approximately 65%.
[/font][/font]
kristopher
(29,798 posts)OKIsItJustMe
(19,938 posts)Please! Dont let science get in the way!
kristopher
(29,798 posts)OKIsItJustMe
(19,938 posts)OK, so, NASA stores electricity in space, we store electricity on the ground. They want to store it for periods longer than 24 hours, we would like to store it for periods longer than 24 hours.
Fuel cells address their needs, but, that is irrelevant, because
? Why exactly?
kristopher
(29,798 posts)The big benefit of fuel cells is the amount of energy they can store. A typical battery can store at most 24 hours worth of energy for a vehicle like the ATHLETE. This is fine for a place like Earth where the Sun shines in 24-hour cycles, but on the Moon where a day lasts 29 Earth days, getting energy to recharge a battery possess a problem. Fuel cells have a higher energy density than traditional batteries.
The problem with fuel cells is that they arent as efficient as traditional batteries. That is, youll only get about 65 percent of the energy you store in a hydrogen fuel cell back in a usable format. Making these fuel cells more efficient is a big goal Valdezs team has.
Were starting to creep up closer to the battery systems, said Valdez. Eventually batteries wont have any advantage over fuel cells.
game changing for NASA
on the Moon where a day lasts 29 Earth days
fuel cells is that they arent as efficient as traditional batteries
Then the hopeful but not expected to be realized:
Making these fuel cells more efficient is a big goal
Eventually batteries wont have any advantage over fuel cells
That 65% is significantly better than automotive infrastructure performance.
OKIsItJustMe
(19,938 posts)Dresden/USA, 29.02.2016
[font size=3]Sunfire has developed the worlds largest commercial reversible electrolysis (RSOC) module and delivered it to U.S. partner Boeing. The energy system uses hydrogen as its storage medium and ensures the reliable supply of electricity originally generated using wind power or photovoltaic arrays. It is now in operation at a U.S. Navy microgrid test facility in California. The solution enables the efficient, long-term storage of large volumes of energy and is based on sunfires own RSOC technology. The fully integrated system converts surplus renewable energy into hydrogen which can then be stored in a highly compressed form. When electric power is required it is generated in a highly environmentally friendly way using hydrogen taken back out of storage (fuel cell mode). It only takes a few minutes to switch the system from energy input to energy output mode.
When in electrolysis mode the system yields 42 cubic metres of hydrogen per hour at up to 85 percent efficiency. When switched to fuel cell mode it delivers 50 kilowatts of electricity at up to 60 percent efficiency. These values provide a basis for the realization of other customer applications in the fields of industrial-scale hydrogen production and energy storage. In addition to hydrogen the system can also be operated in fuel cell mode in combination with cheap natural gas or biogas taken from the grid.
The RSOC system represents an important milestone in the German-American partnership between sunfire and Boeing. The two firms began working together in November 2014, with the RSOC system developed by sunfire at its headquarters in Dresden in cooperation with engineers from Boeing. The high-performance RSOC module was delivered to Boeing in California in September 2015 and consists of a hot box, cold box, control unit and steam generator. Having successfully passed multiple tests when connected to the power grid operated by Southern California Edison, the system has now been integrated into a U.S. Navy microgrid test facility for the purpose of further testing.
Highly compressed hydrogen can be stored in almost unlimited volumes and therefore offers significant advantages over battery-based or pumped-storage hydroelectricity options characterized by restricted capacity. It also solves the issue of long-term storage, which is a problem in the case of batteries due to the fact that they naturally self-discharge over time. The use of electrolysis to convert renewable energies delivers high-purity, green hydrogen which can also be sold as a stand-alone product to consumers such as industrial companies and refineries. Their storage function also enables RSOC systems to make a significant contribution to grid stabilization, generate environmentally friendly power and heat and improve power station efficiency by enhancing capacity utilization.
[/font][/font]
Those fools at the Navy and at Boeing what are they thinking!? 85% * 60% why thats only 50% efficient on the round trip! Its useless! The true believer knows that other considerations are irrelevant!
kristopher
(29,798 posts)Certainly other conditions are relevant. But the calculus for replacing petroleum in addition to the entire electric generation infrastructure prioritizes the relevance in a way that applies to neither NASA nor the Navy.
85 x .60 = .51 = 50% more wind turbines and 50% more solar panels to achieve the same carbon reductions.
OKIsItJustMe
(19,938 posts)The true believer believes in solar power, but only the right kind of solar power. It must be rooftop solar, and never, ever, grid-scale solar. Because centralized solar is evil (despite it being more efficient from a systems viewpoint.)
You see, efficiency is the only consideration worthy consideration by the true believer, unless efficiency is incompatible with the true believers other beliefs.
The true believer knows that fossil fuels are evil, but the true believer knows that fracking to produce natural gas is acceptable as a bridge to carbon-free alternatives, but, even continuing to operate existing nuclear power plants is unacceptable (even though they are carbon-free) and even considering producing any new, safer, type of nuclear power plant is unacceptable even if it might reduce of our stock pile of nuclear waste. (PDF)
The true believer knows that Joe Romm agrees with his stance, even if Joe Romm says otherwise.
No, burning frack gas is acceptable, because carbon-free is not that important really, electricity must be nuclear-free and generated only on rooftops of private homes.
Oh, well, maybe it would be OK for utilities to make wind farms. I guess thats not evil, but they must not be encouraged to build solar farms!
Some might find these stances contradictory, but, not the true believer. No, the true believer sees the only rational path.
kristopher
(29,798 posts)You've done nothing to present a defense of hydrogen's requirement for significant additional generating infrastructure. Try just dealing with the issue instead of incessant personal attacks.
OKIsItJustMe
(19,938 posts)Please! Oh please! Show me the error of my ways!
kristopher
(29,798 posts)Remarkable.
ETA: And still, "You've done nothing to present a defense of hydrogen's requirement for significant additional generating infrastructure".
kristopher
(29,798 posts)...should hydrogen become center stage.
You've asserted that I'm biased, and to the extent that the facts are biased I suppose that is true. This thread exemplifies your lack of response to legitimate discussion on the role of hydrogen and infrastructure in the transition away from carbon.
So how about it? A civil response that addresses the low efficiency of hydrogen for transportation and grid energy storage would be greatly appreciated.