Great news for the future of BEVs

Great news for the future of BEVs

Four of 10 drivers globally would consider an electric car

Over 43,000 people residing in 52 countries all around the globe were asked whether they are considering buying an electric car in the next five years.

On average, four out of 10 motorists say they’re either very likely or likely to get one.

This is great considering we are at 1% now, and there are so few options and so little education around EVs.

And that there is so much FUD. :)

carlk | April 7, 2017

I'm pretty sure what Tesla has done has a lot to do with this.

SamO | April 7, 2017

But . . . but . . . 1%!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And it will stay that way. For a long time. Gas rulz! ;-)

KP in NPT | April 7, 2017

@carlk - absolutely. :)

When we bought our EV, I said that within 5-10 years, when buying a new car, the question will be, "Gas or electric?" In 15 years, it will be "You bought gas?!" It might come sooner than I thought. :)

akgolf | April 7, 2017

That is great news!

Carl Thompson | April 7, 2017

The article says this

"On average, four out of 10 motorists say they’re either very likely or likely to get one.

31 percent of Americans surveyed are planning to go electric.

31 percent of Canadians and 39 percent of Mexicans answered “yes” to the question."

However that's not true. If you look at the source link you see that it is more accurate to say

- "On average, four out of 10 motorists say they’re either very likely or likely to _consider_ getting one."

Green Car Reports needs better editing.


Civicrick | April 7, 2017

Slice and dice

tstolz | April 7, 2017

Yup - cats out of the bag. These cars are awesome!

Tropopause | April 7, 2017

4 out of 5 dentists choose Trident. Oh, wait...

carlgo2 | April 8, 2017

Some entrepreneur needs to put in a nationwide/worldwide fast charging network, get ahead of and lock up this market, becoming the first trillionaire. Build the chargers and they will come.

SamO | April 8, 2017



CraigW | April 8, 2017

At a max mileage of 160KM, exactly who is going to give up their gas car. With the coming of 320KM range, EVs will suddenly become much more popular. Now that Chevy has produced the Bolt, there is less and less excuse for any car manufacturer to produce cars with a range of less than 320KM (200 miles) - unless you are in the Smart Car category.

Carl Thompson | April 8, 2017

"That would indicate that in current terms gasoline would need to be close to $12 gallon to get to 40% EV sales."

You cannot just extrapolate linearly like that. I suspect it would be logarithmic. Certainly more data would be needed to have an idea what the shape of the curve is.



Bighorn | April 8, 2017

At least you recognize he's an idiot when it comes to numbers and maths.

mos6507 | April 8, 2017

"We need government policy..." [cue sound of needle scratching against vinyl]

Write that off for at least the next 4 years thanks to Trump.

KP in NPT | April 8, 2017

Battery prices are falling fast and for Tesla anyway, the cost of their EVs will soon reach parity with ICE. no incentives needed. More FUD.

Frank99 | April 8, 2017

Nice philosophy - get the government to pay for your favorite cause. On a level playing field, BEV adoption would occur even faster.
My preference would be to simply stop providing subsidies for fossil fuel extraction, stop spending billions of dollars to try to militarily keep the Middle East subservient, stop allowing fossil fuel use to poison the planet (and we don't have to discuss CO2 here; mercury, radioactivity, sulfuric acid, and particulates are sufficient), start assessing fees on fossil fuel use to cover the "externalized" costs (health costs, deaths, etc) that the fossil fuel industry gets to ignore.

SamO | April 8, 2017

Great catch @KP

Red Sage ca us | April 8, 2017

Unfortunately the Japanese Kei Car segment is not allowed for use on roads here in the U.S. They are much neater vehicles, typically more attractive I think, than 'urban' vehicles such as the smart four-two or Renault Twizy. Two of the best ever were the Honda Beat and Mazda AZ-1. I would love to see something of that sort of size and shape with a fully electric drivetrain paired with maybe a 40 kWh battery pack.

topher | April 8, 2017


Yes. Thank you.

Haggy | April 8, 2017

It comes down to whether people buy into the philosophy more than what their next car will be. Since the time I got my MS, I got two or three other cars that are ICE. My daughter wanted something compact, and a MS was out of the question both in terms of price and the type of car she wanted. My son now has an SUV, and no place to plug in an EV if he had one. He has a space in a campus parking lot. My daughter has a parking space with no place to plug in. She is about 10 min from a supercharger though, which wasn't the case when she got her car. Had she not moved, she'd be within 10 minutes of one anyway, since there's a new one. Infrastructure is catching up.

Had the Model 3 been on the market a few years ago and readily available, I might have bought 3-4 of them by now.

It comes down to acceptance, but it also comes down to somebody selling what you need where you need it, and it being practical. All these things will change, especially once the Model 3 is on the market. In the mean time, an EV may not be practical for many people who are fine with the idea of owning one.

Red Sage ca us | April 8, 2017

Haggy: +21! Think about the future.

Tropopause | April 8, 2017


In your link, they quote Chevy's battery price at $140/kW and Tesla's at $190/kW. How is this discrepancy possible?

Red Sage ca us | April 8, 2017

Tropopause, I haven't seen the link, but it is probably old or inaccurate numbers. Someone at GM was boasting that their cell-level pricing was at $145 per kWh. Someone from Tesla reported to a radio show that their internal cost (for Model S and Model X) was already below $190 per kWh.

Here the thing is, though... This was sometime in 2016 I believe, though it may have been as early as 2015 instead. I remember around late-Spring/early-Summer of 2014 someone had indicated a guess that Tesla's internal cost was already at $180 per kWh for battery cells. There is a video and article online where it is stated that pack costs run at roughly 20% more than battery cell costs per kWh. And Tesla reported in February 2017 that the Gigafactory #001 would indeed lower their internal costs by 35%.

With all that together... GM's stated $145 per kWh cost for battery cells would come to $174 per kWh. And, Tesla's 'below $190 per kWh' amount at that pack level, less 35%, would be $123.50 per kWh from the Gigafactory at worst. If Tesla had been at or below $180 instead, that would place their Gigafactory output at only $117 per kWh. And that would correspond to about $97.50 per kWh at the battery cell level.

Don't worry. Tesla is going to do just fine. No one is ahead of them on this.

Red Sage ca us | April 8, 2017

Tropopause: One more thing... Sometime around mid-2014, some guy who was purportedly an expert on batteries was blabbing about how the Gigafactory was a bad idea and that Tesla was doomed and that there was no way that electric vehicles could be economically viable and that in his opinion it would take until 2025 (maybe 2022 at the earliest) before battery technology dropped to a very specific amount he had calculated, something like $183 per kWh. He went on to say that it was a pipe dream if anyone, anywhere believed that Tesla had any hope of reducing costs to $100 per kWh or less ahead of that time. Well, naturally, reporters couldn't wait to ask Elon Musk about that and he responded in a rather reserved fashion that he would be 'very disappointed' if it took that long, over a decade, to get to $100 per kWh.

Carl Thompson | April 8, 2017

Red Sage is making a lot of assumptions and comparing GM's cost 1-2 years ago with what Tesla's cost _might_ be 3+ years from now. I wouldn't put much stock in the accuracy of what he's saying here.


Bighorn | April 8, 2017

Bolt uses LG pouch batteries which Elon despises. How much does it cost to engineer the pouches into a functional battery? Will be interesting to see how they fare--more Leaf like or just 40% losses they feel comfortable warranting against. Nobody thinks GM has a price advantage on batteries. Too proprietary to quantify, but likely at least a 20% lower cost with the Panasonic partnership.

KP in NPT | April 8, 2017

@Tropopause - I did see that - but subsequent articles said the price of Tesla batteries might actually be much lower. They don't release the numbers but the Institute for Energy Research piece was from 1/16. In 2016 Tesla was already claiming their price per kWh was less than $190. And that was before the 2170s and the gigafactory - Based on Powerwall it looks like they are closer to $120 now and that is again before the gigafactory is really going full on.

KP in NPT | April 8, 2017

And since the Energy Research piece was from JAN of 2016, their numbers were likely from some point in 2015. Lots different between now and then. +1 Red Sage. @Carl he is not reporting GM numbers from 2-3 years ago. GM's $140 price was what was said when they released the bolt. Last fall.

Red Sage ca us | April 8, 2017

"Surprising confidence
"Not only does Tesla view 30% cost cuts to its batteries as conservative, but Musk said during the second-quarter call that he would be "disappointed if it took us 10 years to get to $100 a kilowatt-hour pack." Since Tesla hasn't shared exactly where its costs are today, it isn't clear what percentage of a cut that $100 per kilowatt hour is to today's cost, but as Deutsche Bank analyst Rod Lache noted during the call, it is low enough for Tesla's electric vehicles to reach cost parity with -- and possibly even improve upon -- the cost of an internal combustion vehicle." -- Tesla Motors, Inc.'s Gigafactory May Be More Revolutionary Than We Realize, Daniel Sparks Aug 20, 2014 | The Motley Fool
https://www.fool .com/investing/general/2014/08/20/tesla-motors-incs-gigafactory-may-be-more-revoluti.aspx

Tesla confirms base Model 3 will have less than 60 kWh battery pack option, cost is below $190/kWh and falling | electrek -- Fred Lambert - Apr. 26th 2016

Electric vehicle battery cost dropped 80% in 6 years down to $227/kWh – Tesla claims to be below $190/kWh | electrek -- Fred Lambert - Jan. 30th 2017

Tesla is now claiming 35% battery cost reduction at ‘Gigafactory 1’ – hinting at breakthrough cost below $125/kWh | electrek -- Fred Lambert - Feb. 18th 2017

JeffreyR | April 8, 2017

My "rebuttal" post regarding GF-01:

Carl Thompson | April 9, 2017

"GM's $140 price was what was said when they released the bolt. Last fall."

Nope, it was a year and a half ago. (And they also said at that time they expect their price to continue to decrease to $100/kWh around 2021 or 2022.)



KP in NPT | April 9, 2017

From the article "That is a secured price at the Bolt’s launch in 2016 – not an estimate."

So at release last fall the price they had secured was $145. They were paying $145 last fall. ;)

It looks like everyone expects $100 soon. Which is good for BEVs.

SamO | April 9, 2017

$145/kWh is at CELL Level for GM.

Less than $190 for is the pack level cost for Tesla

Cells vs packs

Apples vs oranges.

tstolz | April 9, 2017

Pretty clear that Tesla is the cost leader in batteries plus has supply. This is well accepted and is not disputed among anyone but forum trolls. One word ... Gigafactory.

KP in NPT | April 9, 2017

Ah thanks SamO - I missed that. Doesn't help the articles are posting those numbers in the same article - confusing.

Bighorn | April 9, 2017

That's what I was alluding to--raw material vs finished product. Apples and oranges. At this low volume, GM is subsidizing the Bolt massively. Even Elon remarked that they wouldn't see any positive gross margins until well into the ramp. GM never gets there--it's all about the ZEV offsets for their trucks and SUVs.

Carl Thompson | April 9, 2017

"So at release last fall the price they had secured was $145. They were paying $145 last fall. ;)"

I assure you GM needed the batteries _before_ the car was released! No supply contract would specify a price for _after_ the parts were needed. So the wording of the article is probably a bit off.


KP in NPT | April 9, 2017

I'm trying to say $145 is what GM pays for the Bolt batteries. That price was secured in their contract. I don't get why this is so hard.....

Frank99 | April 9, 2017

You're just pitiful, E.

akgolf | April 9, 2017

Sales of the Bolt are pitiful!

Frank99 | April 9, 2017

Sure am glad I'm throwing in with the manufacturer who has the two biggest selling EV's, and an EV with half-a-million reservations, to help drive EV's into the mainstream. I really hope it'll drive the other manufacturers to design and build desirable EV's, rather than elegance-challenged, utility-challenged vehicles intended only to meet compliance targets.
I'd love it if the Model 3 drives Honda, and GM, and Ford to design a car that challenges the Model 3's dominance in 2020. I'd love it if 3 of the top 10 vehicles sold that year were EV's - and that's possible, but I'm afraid that it'll only be two, and those two will be the Model 3 and Model Y, especially since I fully expect CAFE standards to get rolled back.

akgolf | April 9, 2017


SamO | April 9, 2017

I'd just shutter all my factories if I was GM. Buy all the shares back, fire all the workers and stop making garbage cars.

Hello . . . Mary Barra . . . did you get my email?


Carl Thompson | April 9, 2017


And all _I'm_ saying is that of course GM's prices will go down as time goes on. They would not sign a contract that locks them into yesterday's price indefinitely. It's more reasonable to expect the whole industry's battery prices will go down over the years and not just Tesla's.