The “Price Paid” thread indicates otherwise. The first members to post were getting $1500-2000 discounts on the new, never before seen in America, Honda Clarity.
Honda EV committment/future?
- Thread starter jpkik96
- Start date
- Replies 100
- Views 16K
The “Price Paid” thread indicates otherwise. The first members to post were getting $1500-2000 discounts on the new, never before seen in America, Honda Clarity.
Thanks for sharing your perspective and for pointing out that the idea of “winning” just clouds the issue. Successful solutions are often the result of applying a multifaceted approach to deal with the problem.
Not everyone understands that.
jpkik, if that's the only way people can put energy from a public location, then yes it has to be 5mins to put energy to vehicle. Just like gasoline, the only way you can have energy is to go to the public gas station, then the fill up has to be 5mins since no-one wants to wait. But for EV, remember, you have energy at home, most of EV users will charge from home, it's very convenient. Just like you charge your phone. To be honest, from my experience, I rather plugin every day to charge from home, it takes me 5 seconds then waiting at the gas station weekly for 5 mins. But yah, your point is taken. People sentiments are different, and not everyone can charge from home.
That's why EV will be successful and Hydrogen will fail. With EV, you already have the infrastructure, your energy at home. With Hydrogen, you have to build out the infrastructure like gas stations, this a huge investment that no-one has a gut to do it. That's why when Toyota is pitching about hydrogen, no-one believes it, but yet Toyota produces Mirai. I have to give credits to few buyers, probably the only place you have hydrogen stations in the world is in California, and we have like under 30 stations
You assume all modes of transportation drive like you do. For your case EV is obviously the best choice. For a truck that travels 500 miles per day and covers 750k to 1 million miles lifetime, EV is not a viable choice yet. What about a ship that crosses the ocean, can you have batteries that big? Those are applications where hydrogen could have an advantage.
How many 500 miles road trips have you done in your Model Y? Do a couple of them and then let me know if you would rather be in a Clarity or a Model Y for such a trip.
Also with EVs you are using the excess capacity in the existing infrastructure. In a few years the the excess capacity will tap out, and we have to invest in new infrastructure just like hydrogen. It will be easier and cheaper, but it won't be free.
Finally EVs will never be cheaper than what they are now at least in US. You get $10-$15k subsidies between federal, state, and ZEV subsidies. That is more than the cost of batteries, so unless battery price goes negative EV prices will be higher in the future, not lower. That includes Tesla that sells the cars at no profit and makes money on ZEV credits.
You cannot compete with a manufacturer that sells the cars at a loss (Tesla) to gain market share. Clarity came to market at a time when Tesla started aggressive price cuts to Model 3 to gain market share. Tesla still makes negligible profit on each car, and their main profit is from ZEV credits in US and Europe. Their cars are also well designed and they have just a few models, so there is less concern for cannibalization. Once they have a broader line up, more used models on the market, and start making several billion dollars a year like other carmakers there will be more level playing field. I think many automakers can make a competitive car against Tesla, but it will cannibalize their bread and butter models, so they have this dilemma of competing with Tesla but not competing against their own high profit ICE models.
In California, no problem. I just took Norcal to SoCal trip, plenty of supercharging stations. Only spent 30mins stop to fill up 200 miles. But I do think other states that don't have charging infrastructure then yes, for now, Clarity wins. But EV innovation does not stop, it keeps moving, it will pass ICE. I don't claim to be an expert, but many analysts already pointed out that if kw is under $100, then EV will be cheaper to produce than ICE due to the ICE's complexity, too many moving parts.
5 years ago, driving across the country with a Tesla was a tough task, but now everyone is doing it due to more charge stations and fast supercharging. That's the point, EV keeps getting better. Electric America, ChargePoint, EVGo will build about at least half a million of charging stations next few years, then driving 500 miles EV is better than the "Clarity".
You can argue and scream many points you like, I just look at the big player and follow them. If GM does not invest anything more in ICE, put everything in EV, then ICE is dead, simple is that. I know you like ICE to exist, but what's the point if car manufacturers don't sell you ICE cars but EVs
Well, according to the timeline, you at least still have until 2035
Don't worry about how Tesla makes money. Wallstreet has resources and smart people to figure that out, don't need regular people like me and you to figure out how Tesla makes money. There is a reason Wallstreet values TSLA almost trillion dollars company, 3 times bigger than Toyota, 10 times bigger than GM. Base on that valuation, you think Wallstreet thinks EV is the future or ICE is the future. You can scream TSLA is overvalued whatever you like, same folks were screaming when TSLA passed GM a few years ago, keep screaming that TSLA doesn't make money vs GM and buy GM stock, go ahead and do it. At the end of the day, the ones that own TSLA stock make money, not the one that is screaming TSLA is overvalued and only makes money on ZEV credits.
Speaking of hydrogen, can you give me the number of hydrogen car sales in 2020? I only believe in numbers, until I see big numbers then I believe it.
Never mind about hydrogen sales, here is the link:
https://insideevs.com/news/482386/us-hydrogen-fuel-cell-car-sales-2020/
That's why I never believe in hydrogen. Talk is cheap, Show me the numbers
Last edited:
You're thinking too small. Nuclear is the future for seabound freight. In fact, it would be one of the best ways to reduce global emissions today.
Cheers
I was simply pointing out that another member’s statement about new models of anything selling for MSRP or more was not an accurate statement.
Not that we need another Tesla discussion here, I did recently read an article from Seeking Alpha about how some analysts believe that Teslas credits may become worthless as more manufacturers increase production of their own EV’s and therefore have less need to purchase credits from another manufacturer.
It was mostly for entertainment purposes as I have professionals managing my money and they continually exceed my expectations.
Don't worry about how Tesla makes money. Wallstreet has resources and smart people to figure that out, don't need regular people like me and you to figure out how Tesla makes money. There is a reason Wallstreet values TSLA almost trillion dollars company, 3 times bigger than Toyota, 10 times bigger than GM. Base on that valuation, you think Wallstreet thinks EV is the future or ICE is the future. You can scream TSLA is overvalued whatever you like, same folks were screaming when TSLA passed GM a few years ago, keep screaming that TSLA doesn't make money vs GM and buy GM stock, go ahead and do it. At the end of the day, the ones that own TSLA stock make money, not the one that is screaming TSLA is overvalued and only makes money on ZEV credits.
Speaking of hydrogen, can you give me the number of hydrogen car sales in 2020? I only believe in numbers, until I see big numbers then I believe it.
Never mind about hydrogen sales, here is the link:
https://insideevs.com/news/482386/us-hydrogen-fuel-cell-car-sales-2020/
That's why I never believe in hydrogen. Talk is cheap, Show me the numbers
I did not say anything about Tesla being overvalued or undervalued, that was your imagination. I said even cheaper batteries cannot bring down the cost of EVs, because current government subsidies exceed the cost of the battery pack. Per your numbers the 80 kWh battery in Model Y currently costs $12,800 ($160/kWh) and even a 50% reduction (ballpark materials cost) will save only $6400. That is less than federal tax credit, never mind state, utility, and ZEV credits that exist today. So in a few years you will have to pay more for your Model Y or iD4 or Mach e than what you pay today once you factor all kind of subsidies that you get.
I somehow agree that hydrogen for light duty vehicles is not the best option, however your logic of using 2020 sales is flawed. Go and check total sale of electric cars in 2011 (10 years ago). It was less than 2020 hydrogen sales. In 10 years we are at 5%-10% market share due to technological advancement and government support. The same thing can happen with hydrogen in 10 years which is only 2 generation of cars.
Tek_Freek
Active Member
The problem with battery swapping is that it is the same, or more difficult, to implement as a nationwide charger system. We've seen how well that works. Tesla is doing the best job of it, but there are still plenty of routes that have to be avoided. The United States is so big it will take a concerted decades long effort to get it done. Meanwhile I'm avoiding it until it's ready to actually function for a cross country trip on any highway.
Last edited:
Maybe numbers started the same with EV and hydrogen, but EV graph moving upward, like a hockey stick. The growth of charging stations and EV is exponential every year. But hydrogen moving downward, with the last 3 years, hydrogen stations has not grown, hydrogen cars have not grown but shrunk. That's the difference.
Everyone knows ICE is dead, just look at how GM, Ford, VW go all-in with EVs, we know ICE days are numbers. The question here is if PHEV will be relevant.
Imo, it depends on battery technology. The reason we do PHEV because of the battery cost. If the battery price goes under $100/kwh (I think now is $160/kwh, it used to be $1000/kwh when Nissan introduced Leaf), manufacture will have no motivation to produce PHEV since BEV will be cheaper. Also, the battery technology keeps advancing, where gas engine (part of PHEV) are at the dead-end. If the industry can come up with a good solid-state battery, twice the range with the same battery size, and million miles of battery life, then BEV will win for sure. Also, you cannot fight the law of physic, an electric motor is much simpler to produce and maintan than gas engine. That alone, I think EV will win. As I already said, the only thing that hold EV back now is the battery. Once the battery problem is solved( cheaper, more range, fast charging), then it does not make sense to own an ICE.
Just look how GM dumped the volt and put all money on EVs, I really don't think PHEV will have a future. Imo, PHEV is a transition from ICE to BEV only. Eventually few years from now, there will be all BEV. The reason Toyota and Honda are pitching PHEV because they think they have an advantage over Tesla since they know ICE better than Tesla. Just like Toyota was pitching about hydrogen cars, Toyota said it's the future
The revolution of transportation is happening in our lifetime. ICE is dead, EV is the future. Just look at EV stocks, TSLA, NIO, XPEV, wallstreet all aggree that EV is the future that is why they reward 2 years-old company like NIO that has market cap bigger than Bez and BMW. I think all ICE manufacture realize that, they all-in in EVs now, the question here is who will win. Companies that act slow, will die. Blackberry, Nokia, Motorola acted slowly with the boom of smartphone, the same fate will happen to Honda. The retail industry, Sears, JCP, Mancys tried to hold on to their existing business brick and motar, act slowly to combat Amazon, it will happen to Honda and Toyota if they keep trying to hold on to their existing ICE business. I applaud VW and GM, they all-in with EV, no return to ICE. VW 5 years ago invest 25 billion to create meb platform for EV, it starts to pay off since now Benz has to use VW meb to produce EVs. The problem I see many companies like Ford, Toyota use ICE platforms to produce their EVs. Like Toyota, using ICE plaftform to create Rav4 then stick battery in there and call it PHEV, "an EV strategy". Well, let see if they can do it in a long run....
Don't think producing an EV is easy. There is a reason why Tesla is so successful.
I own a Model Y, I test drove Audi Etron, Jaguar IPace, Nissan Leaf and BMW I3, I can clearly say is day and night Tesla vs the rest. I would say Tesla is 3 years ahead of all of them.
Problems with mass adoption of EV:
1) Electrical grid infrastructure won’t be able to keep up. (Look at Texas power loss... CA brown ours in summer). All this with like 1% EV adoption?
2) For Most people EV isn’t cost effective. Especially since Covid has people working from home.. many permanently. Unless you put 20k+ miles a year on a vehicle you aren’t going to save much on an EV. And if electrical rates rise and gas prices fall...you won’t save at all.
3). PHEVs allow customers to use gas when gas prices are low and charge when gas prices are high and electric is low. More flexibility.
4) Half the country rent and don’t have ability to charge a vehicle when parked on the street or in a tandem parking space in an apartment building.
Sure EVs are fun to drive... but I picture a world where people don’t own cars and instead hail Tesla self- driving EVs whenever they need a ride as more likely scenario than adoption of EVs by the masses. Apple planning some sort of EV taxi service by the end of this decade seems likely as well.
Sent from my iPhone using Inside EVs
Overblown and I'm not buying it.
https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/resear...lectric-cars-will-challenge-state-power-grids
These two examples are due to extreme weather. If extreme weather is intensified by green house gases, then EVs are part of the solution and not part of the problem.
Plus, EVs can actually helps solve that problem with V2G. Using them to buffer grid demand will reduce the need for rolling blackouts. They can be charged when best for the grid (excess capacity in off peak times, etc)
This argument is just like you go to a roulette table you bet on both red and black. If EV price wins, you pay an unused ICE engine and carry it around during driving. If ICE price wins, you pay an unsued heavy battery and carry it around and you have to put more money on gas since you have less milage by carrying the heavy battery. Based on your argument, I rather bet either on ICE car or an EV, not PHEV since it adds no value if you are buying a PHEV just you can switch on prices
. PHEV only has great value when you live in an area where you don't have networking charging, you charge your Clarity daily at home to cover your commute, then use gas on a long road trip where charging stations are not available.
turtleturtle
Active Member
They are currently testing this out in Arlington, WA. The utility leaves their Leafs plugged in and if power goes out, the command center pulls power from the cars. Site is powered by solar as well and has other battery storage.
turtleturtle
Active Member
Uhh… I think this is exactly why most of us bought the Clarity instead of a BEV. Commute in electric (hopefully employer has free charging), and ICE for the road trips.
It sure wasn’t about price. The Bolt was way cheaper and a Model 3 is only a few $k away.
As for now, yes, this is the problem, but that does not mean this problem is persisting since we are solving it. As I stated, EV keeps moving, states and governments will invest in public charging so it will be more available. I agree, as for now, we are not there yet. But we are moving forward, whereas ICE is moving backward. With last week's announcement, Toyota is the last player who decides to jump to EV. The game is over, ICE is dead. You show me 1 article that major car manufacturers invest in ICE rather than EV. Even if you are correct, but VM, Bez, GM, Ford, Toyota won't sell you an ICE or PHEV car. So, like it or not, you have to buy EV if you want a new car
ICE is dead, don't know about PHEV, but I do think PHEV days are also numbers. PHEV exists today due to network charging and battery technology (still expensive and range). Once those are solved, then the game is over. Who will buy PHEV when you can get BEV can have 500 miles range and charge 0 to 80% in 15mins and charging stations are available everywhere, look at the battery news today about the solid-state battery. Look at QS news. Look at Toyota news about its solid-states.
Yes, but you did not say that. You said PHEV was for electric price vs gas price so you can "switch". So, I have to say the true value of PHEV is for a long road trip.
Anyway, it's pointless to argue if you only consider where we are stand "as of now". We are talking about the "future" as we move fordward, the whole industry move forward with EV, that's it. GM only has the bolt today, but by 2025 it will have 30 EV models. Jaguar/Land Rover will all make EVs only. That's the whole point. Don't give today's numbers and validate the argument. Today's number of EV is about 5%, but the growth of the next few years is exponential...
When Apple introduced the smartphone, the same group of people did not believe it since the "numbers" were small. Nokia made hundreds millions of dump phones, Apple only sold few thousands...Ohh well....
Last edited:
turtleturtle
Active Member
Not arguing about it. I’m not OP for the thread or part of the continuing dialogue. I didn’t saying anything about gas price or electric price myself.
BEV is certainly a bright future. PHEV is part of the bridge to get there, IMO.