Biofuels are a waste of time

[Simon_Jester]

A Tesla S90 can do 288 miles on the EPA cycle. This would cover your 400km round trip with range to spare, and that's using EPA numbers which are very conservative and which most drivers can easily beat with a light foot on the throttle.

And a good thing too- any plan which relies on the driver's ability to hypermile is not a plan.

Once 200 miles is the norm starting next year, this will no longer be necessary for yours or anyone else's commute. Only traveling salespeople with a large territory will need more range...

Don't bet on it. You might be surprised at the random shit that people have to do, like commute across state lines, make ten thirty-mile drives in one day, and so forth. Granted this is a minority of the population, but let's not get dogmatic and absolutist about "nobody needs a gasoline car!" when it makes infinitely more sense to just plain leave this decision up to individual people.

Technocracy has some pretty harsh limits as a practical system of government. This is one of the reasons why.

Super chargers will be nice to have, but it's a myth that they are necessary for electric cars to be viable and another myth that drivers will regularly be twiddling their thumbs for 30 minutes waiting for the car to charge. The only time they will be used are for long road trips, which are rare for most people. It's been years since the last time I made a trip like that by car, and that was to Los Angeles, which would only require 1 charge during which I could eat lunch or dinner.

"Rare for most people..." One thing you want to factor in is that a lot of people like to have the option of doing things they don't actually have to do very often. I'm willing to pay a considerable premium for the luxury of knowing that if I ever really, really wanted to, I could be somewhere five hundred miles away by dawn tomorrow. If my travel plans get messed up, or if I just plain can't find a flight that leaves when and how I want, or if I need to haul half a ton of miscellaneous luggage from point A to point B...

It's nice to have a car capable of long-term travel.

And since the battery must survive 2 almost complete dis/recharge cycles per day, it means it would be dead or near dead in a year or two, going by the usual 1000 cycles lifespan. Which means a new battery every 2 years, which means about half a car of expenses ( I checked the prices once, I was not pleased.).

EV batteries are typically warrantied for 8 years with unlimited mileage, and heavy users have not reported the kind of drop-off that you speculate here. And even if your battery needs to be replaced in 8 years, you'll be paying the replacement cost 8 years from now.

Even so, if the battery costs half the price of the car, having to pay it at the eight year mark is still an unpleasant thing to have to experience.

It also greatly reduces the value of the car for people buying it used, which is currently THE dominant way that people in the lower middle and the lower class ever actually get a car at all. What you're telling me is that if I buy a used electric car from 2012, then just around the time I get the loan paid off, I'm suddenly out several thousand more dollars of battery replacement expenses.

Thank heavens I didn't have that problem with my battered old Ford...

Well, OK, that will work when it's on a charger... but when the car is sitting outside for 8 or 10 hours at a time where would the power for that heater come from? The battery? But then you'll run the battery down keeping the battery warm!

I'm thinking perhaps a very small heater that doesn't really run the battery down very much, or perhaps none at all. Dewars can keep liquid nitrogen cold for ages, so I wouldn't think something of that style would have much difficulty holding a 30 degree temperature difference for a few hours.

The biggest problem there is what happens if you don't use your car for more than 12 or 24 hours. If a big snowstorm drops enough snow on my area I might not want to drive for several days if I can avoid it... but I'd like to not need a tow truck at the end of that time.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

Once 200 miles is the norm starting next year, this will no longer be necessary for yours or anyone else's commute. Only traveling salespeople with a large territory will need more range...

Don't bet on it. You might be surprised at the random shit that people have to do, like commute across state lines, make ten thirty-mile drives in one day, and so forth. Granted this is a minority of the population, but let's not get dogmatic and absolutist about "nobody needs a gasoline car!" when it makes infinitely more sense to just plain leave this decision up to individual people.

Technocracy has some pretty harsh limits as a practical system of government. This is one of the reasons why.

I may have been hyperbolic with the "only traveling salespeople" line, but it is true that the majority of people only run into situations like that once per year or less, and the majority of the rest have access to a second car for those occasions.

Super chargers will be nice to have, but it's a myth that they are necessary for electric cars to be viable and another myth that drivers will regularly be twiddling their thumbs for 30 minutes waiting for the car to charge. The only time they will be used are for long road trips, which are rare for most people. It's been years since the last time I made a trip like that by car, and that was to Los Angeles, which would only require 1 charge during which I could eat lunch or dinner.

"Rare for most people..." One thing you want to factor in is that a lot of people like to have the option of doing things they don't actually have to do very often. I'm willing to pay a considerable premium for the luxury of knowing that if I ever really, really wanted to, I could be somewhere five hundred miles away by dawn tomorrow. If my travel plans get messed up, or if I just plain can't find a flight that leaves when and how I want, or if I need to haul half a ton of miscellaneous luggage from point A to point B...

It's nice to have a car capable of long-term travel.

No argument there, it's just an infrequent occurrence for most people, and most people who can afford an EV aren't using it as their only means of transportation. Also, even though most car owners are averse to renting a car when they already own one, every time I've run the numbers on a long trip it's been far cheaper to rent one from the airport using a Hotwire special than to put all those miles and wear'n'tear on my own car. If I were saving hundreds of dollars per month in gas with an EV like some commuters do, renting a gas car for the occasional long trip would make even more sense.

EV batteries are typically warrantied for 8 years with unlimited mileage, and heavy users have not reported the kind of drop-off that you speculate here. And even if your battery needs to be replaced in 8 years, you'll be paying the replacement cost 8 years from now.

Even so, if the battery costs half the price of the car, having to pay it at the eight year mark is still an unpleasant thing to have to experience.

The point I was trying to make is that the battery won't cost anywhere near that much when the warranty runs out. The prices have gone from $500 / kwh to $150 in just the last few years, and Tesla's Gigafactory isn't even up and running yet. A transmission in a gas car is far more expensive to replace and much more prone to failure than an EV battery will be in 2019 when the oldest Model S batteries fall out of warranty. You also don't have the option of upgrading to a newer transmission with better technology when the old one goes, it's just a pure expense with no upside.

It also greatly reduces the value of the car for people buying it used, which is currently THE dominant way that people in the lower middle and the lower class ever actually get a car at all. What you're telling me is that if I buy a used electric car from 2012, then just around the time I get the loan paid off, I'm suddenly out several thousand more dollars of battery replacement expenses.

Thank heavens I didn't have that problem with my battered old Ford...

The depreciation in the used market has to do with uncertainty and the fact that so many people who are interested in EVs have the disposable income to buy or lease new.

People also said not to buy a Prius 10 years ago, predicting massive numbers of astronomically priced battery replacements that turned out to be pure fantasy. Instead the Prius has proven to be so reliable that it has largely replaced the mighty Crown Vic in taxi fleets.

Mass-market EVs have been around for 6 years now, so this is no longer within the realm of speculation, and the high rates of battery failure and high costs of replacement that some predicted have simply not occurred. The occasional claim of a ridiculous dealer quote for a replacement battery are quickly debunked by other owners and it has never been proven that those prices have actually been paid for a replacement.

[Simon_Jester]

I may have been hyperbolic with the "only traveling salespeople" line, but it is true that the majority of people only run into situations like that once per year or less, and the majority of the rest have access to a second car for those occasions.

Maintaining two cars per household specifically so that one of them can be the long range vehicle is unduly expensive by middle-class standards. Prohibitively expensive for low-income families or single individuals.

So that's a lot of people right there for whom the electric car is going to need to hit a major technical milestone or two before it becomes appealing.

"Rare for most people..." One thing you want to factor in is that a lot of people like to have the option of doing things they don't actually have to do very often. I'm willing to pay a considerable premium for the luxury of knowing that if I ever really, really wanted to, I could be somewhere five hundred miles away by dawn tomorrow. If my travel plans get messed up, or if I just plain can't find a flight that leaves when and how I want, or if I need to haul half a ton of miscellaneous luggage from point A to point B...

It's nice to have a car capable of long-term travel.

No argument there, it's just an infrequent occurrence for most people, and most people who can afford an EV aren't using it as their only means of transportation...

Also, even though most car owners are averse to renting a car when they already own one, every time I've run the numbers on a long trip it's been far cheaper to rent one from the airport using a Hotwire special than to put all those miles and wear'n'tear on my own car. If I were saving hundreds of dollars per month in gas with an EV like some commuters do, renting a gas car for the occasional long trip would make even more sense.

As a rule yes- but the automobile adds flexibility to a lot of cases where flying isn't very practical. Remember that traveling isn't always just about getting your own body from point A to B along with minimal luggage.

You might be transporting a family of four (in which case your fuel and maintenance costs on the car are unchanged, your lodging costs probably double or are unchanged, whereas your airline ticket costs quadruple).

You might be moving cross-country with only the goods you can cram into your car (cost of moving your property plus you personally by car may well be less than the cost of flying plus the cost of having a mover carry the stuff across the country without your supervision).

Both these examples have occurred to me or those close to me in the past decade or less, so they pop readily into my mind. And that ties back to my basic argument that flexibility matters.

I'm reminded of our discussion of driverless cars a while back where similar issues arose, and what it comes down to is that for a LOT of people, it is not reassuring and may not even be acceptable to hear "this device is 25% more efficient in 95% of situations and useless in the other 5% of situations." Not when talking about a fundamental tool of one's day-to-day existence that often must be used to resolve a critical emergency, such as a car.

EV batteries are typically warrantied for 8 years with unlimited mileage, and heavy users have not reported the kind of drop-off that you speculate here. And even if your battery needs to be replaced in 8 years, you'll be paying the replacement cost 8 years from now.

Even so, if the battery costs half the price of the car, having to pay it at the eight year mark is still an unpleasant thing to have to experience.

The point I was trying to make is that the battery won't cost anywhere near that much when the warranty runs out.

So we are assured- the exact merits of that argument may deserve to be examined closely.

The prices have gone from $500 / kwh to $150 in just the last few years, and Tesla's Gigafactory isn't even up and running yet. A transmission in a gas car is far more expensive to replace and much more prone to failure than an EV battery will be in 2019 when the oldest Model S batteries fall out of warranty. You also don't have the option of upgrading to a newer transmission with better technology when the old one goes, it's just a pure expense with no upside.

Most cars don't need the transmission replaced after eight years, or for that matter sixteen, though a lot of cars will need it worked on during that time.

So the question is, is it going to be eight years until predictable battery failure, or eight years until there is a 20% risk of battery failure? That's a very important calculation to make when deciding whether or not to buy the car. ESPECIALLY when buying it used.

It also greatly reduces the value of the car for people buying it used, which is currently THE dominant way that people in the lower middle and the lower class ever actually get a car at all. What you're telling me is that if I buy a used electric car from 2012, then just around the time I get the loan paid off, I'm suddenly out several thousand more dollars of battery replacement expenses.

Thank heavens I didn't have that problem with my battered old Ford...

The depreciation in the used market has to do with uncertainty and the fact that so many people who are interested in EVs have the disposable income to buy or lease new.

Well, yes; that's kind of my point.

Electric vehicles aren't going to be viable replacements for gas-driven vehicles until they can compete in all major sectors of the market, rather than being toys for those who can afford to blow an extra ten or twenty thousand dollars to feel green. One major sector of the market is the gas-driven four-door sedans driven by most Americans. So far as I know, in the case of most middle-middle class and lower Americans, that sedan is a sedan they bought used.

The fact that we don't yet know whether battery replacements are going to be a major necessity for the current generation of electric cars will depress sales of used electric cars for at least another 5-10 years. Hopefully the matter will be resolved favorably by then.

Mass-market EVs have been around for 6 years now, so this is no longer within the realm of speculation, and the high rates of battery failure and high costs of replacement that some predicted have simply not occurred. The occasional claim of a ridiculous dealer quote for a replacement battery are quickly debunked by other owners and it has never been proven that those prices have actually been paid for a replacement.

As long as the batteries don't wear out at the 8-10 year mark, we're fine.

[biostem]

My biggest issue with electric cars is simply that I do not have a garage, much less a driveway or even reserved parking space, where I can reliably run an extension cord to charge an EV in the first place. My normal daily commute is within what current electric cars can handle, but the inability to get a charge cuts me out of them being feasible. And there's no way I'm going to offload a few hundred pounds of batteries from the car to my home in order to charge them up each day.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

I may have been hyperbolic with the "only traveling salespeople" line, but it is true that the majority of people only run into situations like that once per year or less, and the majority of the rest have access to a second car for those occasions.

Maintaining two cars per household specifically so that one of them can be the long range vehicle is unduly expensive by middle-class standards. Prohibitively expensive for low-income families or single individuals.

So that's a lot of people right there for whom the electric car is going to need to hit a major technical milestone or two before it becomes appealing.

Correct. I said practical, but there's an additional gap between practical and appealing so I think we're in agreement.

No argument there, it's just an infrequent occurrence for most people, and most people who can afford an EV aren't using it as their only means of transportation...

Also, even though most car owners are averse to renting a car when they already own one, every time I've run the numbers on a long trip it's been far cheaper to rent one from the airport using a Hotwire special than to put all those miles and wear'n'tear on my own car. If I were saving hundreds of dollars per month in gas with an EV like some commuters do, renting a gas car for the occasional long trip would make even more sense.

As a rule yes- but the automobile adds flexibility to a lot of cases where flying isn't very practical. Remember that traveling isn't always just about getting your own body from point A to B along with minimal luggage.

You might be transporting a family of four (in which case your fuel and maintenance costs on the car are unchanged, your lodging costs probably double or are unchanged, whereas your airline ticket costs quadruple).

You might be moving cross-country with only the goods you can cram into your car (cost of moving your property plus you personally by car may well be less than the cost of flying plus the cost of having a mover carry the stuff across the country without your supervision).

Both these examples have occurred to me or those close to me in the past decade or less, so they pop readily into my mind. And that ties back to my basic argument that flexibility matters.

I'm reminded of our discussion of driverless cars a while back where similar issues arose, and what it comes down to is that for a LOT of people, it is not reassuring and may not even be acceptable to hear "this device is 25% more efficient in 95% of situations and useless in the other 5% of situations." Not when talking about a fundamental tool of one's day-to-day existence that often must be used to resolve a critical emergency, such as a car.

Of course. It will be a long time before EVs are as flexible as gas cars and would probably require wireless recharging tech that could function similar to overhead catenary for trolleys. The current reality is that Battery EVs are for people who don't need that flexibility or who have access to a gas car, whether it's because they can rent one or the family owns 2 cars anyway and is looking to replace one. A Plug-In Hybrid like the Chevy Volt or upcoming Chrysler Pacifica can do it all, but you still need regular access to a plug to take advantage and not everyone has that. In 10 years the situation might be a lot different.

The prices have gone from $500 / kwh to $150 in just the last few years, and Tesla's Gigafactory isn't even up and running yet. A transmission in a gas car is far more expensive to replace and much more prone to failure than an EV battery will be in 2019 when the oldest Model S batteries fall out of warranty. You also don't have the option of upgrading to a newer transmission with better technology when the old one goes, it's just a pure expense with no upside.

Most cars don't need the transmission replaced after eight years, or for that matter sixteen, though a lot of cars will need it worked on during that time.

So the question is, is it going to be eight years until predictable battery failure, or eight years until there is a 20% risk of battery failure? That's a very important calculation to make when deciding whether or not to buy the car. ESPECIALLY when buying it used.

I haven't heard of any cases of outright battery failure, just faster than expected capacity loss in Nissan Leafs (which do not incorporate some of the battery longevity tech of other EVs for cost reasons). Typically after 8 years you're looking at about 15-20% less range than you started with.

The depreciation in the used market has to do with uncertainty and the fact that so many people who are interested in EVs have the disposable income to buy or lease new.

Well, yes; that's kind of my point.

Electric vehicles aren't going to be viable replacements for gas-driven vehicles until they can compete in all major sectors of the market, rather than being toys for those who can afford to blow an extra ten or twenty thousand dollars to feel green. One major sector of the market is the gas-driven four-door sedans driven by most Americans. So far as I know, in the case of most middle-middle class and lower Americans, that sedan is a sedan they bought used.

The fact that we don't yet know whether battery replacements are going to be a major necessity for the current generation of electric cars will depress sales of used electric cars for at least another 5-10 years. Hopefully the matter will be resolved favorably by then.

Depending on where you live, the economics can work out pretty well. If you're looking to replace the oldest family car, a $9K used Nissan Leaf that can be charged at off-peak rates for 2.4 cents / kwh (gas equivalent of ~$0.50 / gallon) will make more financial sense than anything else on the road, especially since there is no such thing as a high mileage Nissan Leaf (hard to put 100K miles on a vehicle that only goes 75 on a charge). With current subsidies and dealer rebates, it's not unusual for people in California to drive a new Chevy Volt off the lot for ~$22K, a very small premium over a similarly equipped gas car and many Volt owners routinely drive 1,000 electric miles before circumstances force them to burn any gas. That's about the same as an entry-level Prius, which doesn't have a plug and isn't nearly as quiet or as quick. Granted, these numbers are enabled by a $7,500 federal tax credit and $2,500 CA credit, but gas cars get even bigger subsidies in the form of billions in tax breaks for oil companies and a political willingness to let the nation's roads and bridges crumble rather than keep the gas tax that was supposed to pay for their repair at inflation-adjusted levels.

Another thing people don't realize about EVs until they drive one is that they're better cars so they're worth a little extra. You don't appreciate how loud and distracting a gas engine is until you've gotten used to an EV, and because they deliver all of their torque at 0 RPM and have such a wide powerband that the transmissions only have 1 gear, they feel much quicker than their horsepower figures would indicate. The battery being placed under the floor also lowers the center of gravity which improves the handling. I love my Honda Fit, but compared to the similarly-sized and specc'd Leaf, there's no comparison in comfort and feel.

[Simon_Jester]

Of course. It will be a long time before EVs are as flexible as gas cars and would probably require wireless recharging tech that could function similar to overhead catenary for trolleys...

Have you thought about what would entail? Cars require a power supply in the tens of kilowatts while operating. If a recharge mechanism is going to recharge a car's battery in anything like the amount of time it takes that car to dis-charge, it would have to provide tens of kilowatts of power too.

How do you do that wirelessly, except by having microwave beams that could literally cook a human body dead if it wandered in the path of the beam, or something like that?

"Wireless" systems for providing that kind of power to a moving vehicle typically involve catenary or third rails that will kill you by dumping high voltage, high power current through your body if you touch them.

This is a fundamental issue with the way electricity and electromagnetic waves work; you can increase wireless bandwidth safely much more easily than you can increase wireless power. Realistically, electric cars are going to need either a corded plug to recharge, or a system for swapping out batteries for charging.

I haven't heard of any cases of outright battery failure, just faster than expected capacity loss in Nissan Leafs (which do not incorporate some of the battery longevity tech of other EVs for cost reasons). Typically after 8 years you're looking at about 15-20% less range than you started with.

Okay, that's bad, but not atrocious- though I'll note it is still in many ways worse than a piston-engine car, because one thing piston-engine cars don't lose as they age is range. Range is an important asset because there's a very sharp difference between "can get there without refueling" and "can't get there without refueling."

Most car transmissions don't lose 15-20% of their performance in any measurable sense after a mere eight years, either.

Depending on where you live, the economics can work out pretty well. If you're looking to replace the oldest family car, a $9K used Nissan Leaf that can be charged at off-peak rates for 2.4 cents / kwh (gas equivalent of ~$0.50 / gallon) will make more financial sense than anything else on the road, especially since there is no such thing as a high mileage Nissan Leaf (hard to put 100K miles on a vehicle that only goes 75 on a charge).

By the same token, there are a LOT of people out there who aren't going to be content with a car that literally cannot go more than seventy-five miles in a day. It may be cheap, but for me at least, I'd be getting what I paid for... and there's still something of an unknown in how many of those seventy-five miles of range I would still have five years later.

[Borgholio]

By the same token, there are a LOT of people out there who aren't going to be content with a car that literally cannot go more than seventy-five miles in a day. It may be cheap, but for me at least, I'd be getting what I paid for... and there's still something of an unknown in how many of those seventy-five miles of range I would still have five years later.

In my situation, I have a ~60 mile commute to work each-way. A Leaf would be useless since I would be required to charge up at work or else I would not be able to make it home. A Volt would be fine since I can do almost half of my commute on battery and have the engine to get me home. To go full electric, it would have to be a ~200 mile range at least so I can get a full round trip AND have spare capacity if I need to run errands or if I have to use excessive climate control OR if the battery eventually wears down. As long as there is an extra range buffer like that, I personally would not be concerned. With a Tesla I get the 200+ miles and the added advantage of the Super charger so I don't have to worry about range. Ever. I think once other EV manufacturers develop a similar high-speed charging system, many of the complaints about battery range / capacity will be solved.

[LaCroix]

Well, yes, a Tesla will get me 200 miles range (with no extended range generator, though).

But at ~80k € for a used one with 30k km. For that, I can buy a perfectly fine and comfortable used car (mine was 15k€for a 50k km used 307 with all extras), and still have 65000 € to spend on diesel (6.5l/100km) and service, which is roughly 10 years of operation( a bit more if I compare to the Tesla including the energy cost and service during that time.) For that kind of money, I can almost buy a house.
There needs to be a big leap forward in price to make this an option for a commuter.

Once I can get a 2-300 miles ranged electric car for, say 30k€ new, I'll agree that the new era has dawned.

Hybrids are in that rangge, both the Prius and the Volt. But if I use a Volt, I get a few miles electric, and then have to use their engine for the rest - at 6,35 l/100km (according to EPA). Prius is pretty close, 5.7l, I've read. Thus, not much improvement over a real car for me, and with added complexity as their service gets much more complicated du to added parts. If I hadn't the commute I have, I'd totally get one, though, for the short range efficienty is awesome, and I still get to drive a long trip if I want to, and can't get stranded.

[Borgholio]

There needs to be a big leap forward in price to make this an option for a commuter.

Tesla Model 3. 200+ miles of range, $35,000 before any tax incentives or rebates. Pre-orders start March 31, first scheduled deliveries next year. This is the one that Tesla is planning to sell 500k units per year once production is fully ramped up.

Once I can get a 2-300 miles ranged electric car for, say 30k€ new, I'll agree that the new era has dawned.

The sky is already brightening.

Many car manufacturers are actually aiming for the 200 mile goalpost now that they realize there could be demand for it. Tesla is the only one that gives the Supercharger advantage, but Chevy has the Bolt which is due out later this year, and the next-gen Leaf is rumored to have 200 miles range.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

Of course. It will be a long time before EVs are as flexible as gas cars and would probably require wireless recharging tech that could function similar to overhead catenary for trolleys...

Have you thought about what would entail?

Of course I've thought about it. I've thought "that would be fucking cool"!"

Cars require a power supply in the tens of kilowatts while operating. If a recharge mechanism is going to recharge a car's battery in anything like the amount of time it takes that car to dis-charge, it would have to provide tens of kilowatts of power too.

How do you do that wirelessly, except by having microwave beams that could literally cook a human body dead if it wandered in the path of the beam, or something like that?

"Wireless" systems for providing that kind of power to a moving vehicle typically involve catenary or third rails that will kill you by dumping high voltage, high power current through your body if you touch them.

This is a fundamental issue with the way electricity and electromagnetic waves work; you can increase wireless bandwidth safely much more easily than you can increase wireless power. Realistically, electric cars are going to need either a corded plug to recharge, or a system for swapping out batteries for charging.

Conceeded. The idea occurred to me while I was writing the post but I didn't bother to investigate fully.

I haven't heard of any cases of outright battery failure, just faster than expected capacity loss in Nissan Leafs (which do not incorporate some of the battery longevity tech of other EVs for cost reasons). Typically after 8 years you're looking at about 15-20% less range than you started with.

Okay, that's bad, but not atrocious- though I'll note it is still in many ways worse than a piston-engine car, because one thing piston-engine cars don't lose as they age is range. Range is an important asset because there's a very sharp difference between "can get there without refueling" and "can't get there without refueling."

Most car transmissions don't lose 15-20% of their performance in any measurable sense after a mere eight years, either.

Yes, although there are many more maintenance and repair issues in gas cars than just the transmission. You'll never change the oil on a BEV, for instance, and regenerative braking means a lot less stress on various components from stop-and-go traffic. The point I was trying to make is that people fret about issues regarding the battery and ignore issues with gas cars that are just as frequent and expensive to fix, if not more. About a year ago I sold a BMW Z3 for $2,800 with the disclosure that the clutch was not in great shape and the sale was final. 2 weeks after I sold it, the clutch went out and the shop bill was $2,500, or roughly the cost of an aftermarket EV battery.

Also, the upside of someday replacing the battery is that you can replace it with a much newer and better one that can provide massive increases in range. This assumes you have a Tesla, though. Sadly, the other manufacturers have remained tied to the old model of only producing new parts to the original specifications for existing vehicles, so no zinc-air battery will be dropped into your 2013 Leaf in 10 years.

Depending on where you live, the economics can work out pretty well. If you're looking to replace the oldest family car, a $9K used Nissan Leaf that can be charged at off-peak rates for 2.4 cents / kwh (gas equivalent of ~$0.50 / gallon) will make more financial sense than anything else on the road, especially since there is no such thing as a high mileage Nissan Leaf (hard to put 100K miles on a vehicle that only goes 75 on a charge).

By the same token, there are a LOT of people out there who aren't going to be content with a car that literally cannot go more than seventy-five miles in a day. It may be cheap, but for me at least, I'd be getting what I paid for... and there's still something of an unknown in how many of those seventy-five miles of range I would still have five years later.

About 50 in San Francisco, judging from the 2011 Leaf that I recently rented to run some errands and just out of curiosity. As a second car, that's plenty for most people. Once the Chevy Bolt kicks off the 200 mile standard at the end of this year, that same 20% degradation will turn the range into 160 miles after x years, or worst case ~120 in a city like San Francisco. Still easily enough to do everything I would need in a day with miles to spare. That makes it practical for almost everyone in America, although perhaps still not yet "appealing" as we discussed earlier.

[His Divine Shadow]

I can't wait for EV's but sadly the drawback to all these modern cars is how little you can service them yourselves. I really want a car I can work on at home.

[K. A. Pital]

I can't wait for EV's but sadly the drawback to all these modern cars is how little you can service them yourselves. I really want a car I can work on at home.

Indeed. I want to understand the machine construction and be able to carry out at least small fixes and tweaks by myself. I think that this is marginally possible with some 2010-2015 run cars, but the more electronics you put in, the less remains for this "LEGO for grown-ups" enthusiast.

And I'm not even touching off-road and snow capabilities which are essential if you live in the mountains, travel north or travel over 2000 km through Europe. Or further.

What I like about diesel cars is just how immortal they are; with proper service and replacement they can last for ages, until the rot kills them, I guess. And the engines are reliable and not prone to failure, construction is pretty simple. Add to this the limited consumption and (discounting the behaviour of those like Volkswagen) moderate emissions, and you'd be hard pressed to find something better than a diesel if you do long-range car travelling on the weekends (think a total of 800-1000 km) or long commutes (40-50 km) every day.

[Me2005]

I can't wait for EV's but sadly the drawback to all these modern cars is how little you can service them yourselves. I really want a car I can work on at home.

EV's are arguably both way worse and way better for self-service. When I was in a secondary-school auto shop, EV/Hybrid cars were *just* becoming available. To do anything to one, we had to be specially trained, clear a ~10' work zone around the car, and no one else could enter that zone unless they were likewise trained as touching the wrong part at the wrong time could discharge the battery and drop you - and anyone around you - dead. On the other hand, the components are largely simple and straightforward in nature: battery, motor, motor controller. Anyone familiar with RC drone building or electronics work would probably recognize the parts in the EV. It's just that the battery in the EV contains lethal levels of power.

I haven't heard of any cases of outright battery failure, just faster than expected capacity loss in Nissan Leafs (which do not incorporate some of the battery longevity tech of other EVs for cost reasons). Typically after 8 years you're looking at about 15-20% less range than you started with.

...
Most car transmissions don't lose 15-20% of their performance in any measurable sense after a mere eight years, either.

Yes, although there are many more maintenance and repair issues in gas cars than just the transmission. ...The point I was trying to make is that people fret about issues regarding the battery and ignore issues with gas cars that are just as frequent and expensive to fix, if not more. ...

Also, the upside of someday replacing the battery is that you can replace it with a much newer and better one that can provide massive increases in range. This assumes you have a Tesla, though. ...

My understanding of current chemical battery technology is that they will all die completely in X years regardless of use, and doing some things they don't like kills them faster (Hot/cold cycles, use cycles, poor charging habits, completely draining the battery at any point, etc.). Unless we come up with a really revolutionary battery design, one which may or may not be compatible with existing EV infrastructure, you're looking at replacing the power pack or facing pretty significant power reduction year-to-year in ~10 years.

Cost wise, I thought I'd worked out on this board that a new bottom-end Leaf would not pan out against a new top-end Versa (Very good comparison since they're the same basic platform: They're hatchback people-movers that started out exactly the same size & shape). IIRC, you'd be looking at ~10 years with $5 a gallon gas and inexpensive power before you break even, and then at that point you'd need a new power pack and be in the red again. I forget if that took the subsidy into account, but I did account for much more maintenance on the Versa than the Leaf.

As an aside, the top-end Versa (and most other Nissans models) don't have traditional transmissions that need costly repairs. They use Continuously-Variable Transmissions (CVTs) that have very few moving parts (it's a belt wrapped around two variably-spaced V wheels) and mine is warrantied to be good for 100k miles (~7 years of driving). So far I've done half of that with 0 trouble, and the feel is very slick - no stuttering on shifting and the thing is great on hills. With the warranty, you're basically looking at a toss up on cost of battery replacement vs. transmission failure; but an EV is double the price up front.

It's also troubling that most chemistries are, in one way or another, toxic. So going full-bore for EV's may have dire long term consequences if we can't figure out a non-toxic useful battery chemistry (Which may be coming, I thought I'd seen some interesting battery advances lately).

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

Yes, although there are many more maintenance and repair issues in gas cars than just the transmission. ...The point I was trying to make is that people fret about issues regarding the battery and ignore issues with gas cars that are just as frequent and expensive to fix, if not more. ...

Also, the upside of someday replacing the battery is that you can replace it with a much newer and better one that can provide massive increases in range. This assumes you have a Tesla, though. ...

My understanding of current chemical battery technology is that they will all die completely in X years regardless of use, and doing some things they don't like kills them faster (Hot/cold cycles, use cycles, poor charging habits, completely draining the battery at any point, etc.). Unless we come up with a really revolutionary battery design, one which may or may not be compatible with existing EV infrastructure, you're looking at replacing the power pack or facing pretty significant power reduction year-to-year in ~10 years.

2011 Nissan Leafs are down about 20% from original spec, so in another 4 years that could climb to 30%, however other EVs have fared much better because they use liquid cooling. 2011 Chevy Volts, for instance, are just now starting to lose range from the original spec. I don't know what the timeframe is for EV batteries no longer accepting a charge, but it's definitely more than 10 years.

Cost wise, I thought I'd worked out on this board that a new bottom-end Leaf would not pan out against a new top-end Versa (Very good comparison since they're the same basic platform: They're hatchback people-movers that started out exactly the same size & shape). IIRC, you'd be looking at ~10 years with $5 a gallon gas and inexpensive power before you break even, and then at that point you'd need a new power pack and be in the red again. I forget if that took the subsidy into account, but I did account for much more maintenance on the Versa than the Leaf.

I've driven a 2011 Leaf and 2013 Versa within the last 3 months and the Leaf is a much nicer car. It's not even in the same category for comfort, refinement, perceived acceleration, and handling. A BMW 3 series isn't going to pencil out cost-wise against a Honda Civic, either. That said, there was recently a story on GreenCarReports.com about someone who maanged to buy a new 2015 Leaf for $16K, which would compare favorably to any gas car on cost, even a Mistubishi Mirage. Still, you're correct that an entry-level gas car is usually cheaper than any EV or PHEV, which is why I chose to lease a 2015 Honda Fit for my last vehicle purchase. My next car will definitely have a plug, though.

As an aside, the top-end Versa (and most other Nissans models) don't have traditional transmissions that need costly repairs. They use Continuously-Variable Transmissions (CVTs) that have very few moving parts (it's a belt wrapped around two variably-spaced V wheels) and mine is warrantied to be good for 100k miles (~7 years of driving). So far I've done half of that with 0 trouble, and the feel is very slick - no stuttering on shifting and the thing is great on hills. With the warranty, you're basically looking at a toss up on cost of battery replacement vs. transmission failure; but an EV is double the price up front.

It's also troubling that most chemistries are, in one way or another, toxic. So going full-bore for EV's may have dire long term consequences if we can't figure out a non-toxic useful battery chemistry (Which may be coming, I thought I'd seen some interesting battery advances lately).

This is similar to the argument that EVs don't save on emissions, they just move them from the tailpipe to the power plant. It sounds reasonable until you run the numbers and find that the damage to the climate from power produced at plants and making batteries is far less than the equivalent amount of tailpipe emissions.