A few UM plug-in study thoughts
Have automakers over-played the plug?Like past studies, the University of Michigan plug-in study finds that a number of Americans, 42 percent in this study, are interested in plug-in vehicles. Of course, most of those interested are only willing to pay about $2,500 extra for a plug-in vehicle, which is also in line with most other studies.
The study also finds that foreign oil dependency is a much bigger plug-in adoption factor than is global warming.
Consequently, while there is a market for plug-in vehicles, there seems to be a far greater market for cost-effective, foreign-oil dependency-fighting solutions than what plug-in vehicles are going to address any time soon. For instance, other studies have suggested that as many as 80 percent of Americans are interested in hybrid cars, again, if the price is right.
Obviously, the price isn't right for most Americans today. Nor are there enough hybrid choices.
However, that will have to change if Toyota is to achieve its 30 percent hybrid sales goal by 2020. And, if they can achieve this goal, imagine how many potential plug-in hybrid consumers Toyota will have in its pipeline just as plug-ins start achieving scalability.
Some have called Toyota's plug-in plans "conservative". In reality, aren't Toyota's battery-powered vehicle plans not only more aggressive than every other automaker, but also more realistic?
Labels: Foreign Oil Dependency, Hybrid Vehicles, plug-in hybrid vehicles
posted by Dahcredyns at
9:02 AM
11 Comments:
way back when, I noticed that Toyota would "deliver" on their sticker city/highway MPG and that the American cars always seemed to fall short for some reason.
The I notice that the American cars would take the top spots for the J.D. Power "Initial Quality" surveys but then later on their longer term reliability stats reported in Consumer Reports - sucked.
so my perception is that Toyota usually delivers what they promise and the American companies usually come up short but you'd never know it listening to their commercials.
I think when we talk about how GM go it wrong - this is one of the places.
Their attitude has been and still continues to be even now that Americans will choose style and pizazz over functionality and reliability.
This is why I smell a rat with the Volt.
I might be wrong but I'll take a "maybe" from Toyota any day over an "Absolutely" from GM.
this might provide a clue to the cost-effectiveness issue:
Metro to test its bus emissions, cost effectiveness
Metro will team with West Virginia University to settle once and for all which of its bus types, compressed natural gas, clean diesel or hybrid, runs cleaner and is more cost effective.
http://tinyurl.com/yk8gm5g
Once again you've hit the nail on the head....
"Yes I want to reduce foreign oil dependence. What? It's going to cost me more? Well... Let me think about it"
It is sad, but it is also the truth.
If the issue is that over the longer run - the cost is lower than there is opportunity.
For instance, the govt can then justify rebates and tax incentives if the end result is const-neutral.
The problem with the utility industries as pointed out before is that unless they have decouple the rate structure - conservation reduces their profits - and no business responsible to it's investors can justify that.
In Virginia, for instance, the utilities are guaranteed a minimum rate of return on their investment - in return for being completely responsible for providing adequate power on the grid.
And if you compare the incidence of brownouts/blackouts in Va to California - it's my understanding that they are not uncommon in California whereas in Va - we don't even know the last time we had a brownout/blackout solely due to demand.
In a day an time when a 2-3 hour outage can cost people a lot of money in lost food and fried equipment - that counts for a lot.
It's not that people don't want to conserve and use less.
They would love to.
They would love to get LOWER electric bills.
They would love to have the ability to make choices that would result in lower electric bills.
Here's another example. Many if not most homes overseas use on-demand water heating - from heat-exchangers. They do not have water storage heaters.
Tankless water heaters cost 2-3 times as much as conventional heaters but they pay back in a fairly fast time frame.
but just like with compact fluorescents when the old water heater goes belly up - even those who would like to use less electricity are face with immediate costs to their budget - as a deciding factor.
It would actually benefit the electric utility to provide the tankless water heater up front and put it on the monthly bill which would end up being revenue neutral to the homeowner but the utility has two problems.
First they would have to maintain a fund themselves to buy the heaters.
And then, they'd make less profit as more and more of the tanks were installed and in use.
If you want to blame someone - I'd say focus on the way we currently have policies that, in effect, encourage consumption rather than rewarding less consumption.
this is exactly like health care.
Companies make higher profits when people consume more... an they make lower profits when people consume less.
so the guy that goes to a primary care physician on a regular basis and that physician catches a disease early on - he not only saves the guys life but he saves the the bigger expenditures of money to fight a late-stage disease.
In this country - we have a system that rewards and encourages consumption whereas in countries overseas - they do not.
a bunch of interesting thoughts in there, larry.
your tankless water idea demonstrates the folly of american politics and economics.
really, you could extend that idea to solar power as well. long term, a solar array in south california will be a cash positive investment, but it might take 20 years. its hard for the average person to invest a large chunk of money in an investment that takes 20 years to mature.
businesses, governments, etc. are much more capable of such expenditures.
still, maybe you don't give it away, but you make it ridiculously cost-effective to purchase via subsidies - subsidies that are guaranteed a return on investment.
but we can't do that, we have to figure out how to best monetize. a few people need to make billions in profit before any such plan can move forward.
but back to the Volt.
i don't necessarily smell a rat in the Volt. i smell it in the marketing. its being oversold.
if gas hits $4.00 in 3 years, the Volt won't help GM that much.
the prius and other hybrid vehicles, however, will be a goldmine for Toyota.
in a decade or so, the Volt could become GM's most important vehicle, or at least a major hit. or, gm might have already moved onto something else.
there is a lot of time for innovation between then and now that could completely change the formula for plug-in success.
the big rub with CFs, tankless water heaters, solar arrays, etc is the up-front cost.
In theory - if they truly pay for themselves and then some then having them installed _should" result in a reduced usage, lower electric bill in exchange for the increased efficiency.
The problem is that most folks will go into hock for a new car or a backyard pool but not these other things.
re: the Volt
take away the Volt and how does GM compare to Toyota in it's planning for it's future fleet?
Toyota says that it plans on having hybrids in every model line and will produce what? 30% Hybrids by some future date?
Now tell me what are GM's Plans?
either they are not very well known to most folks or they've been pushing the Volt as their primary "green" credentials or both.
I would say that from what I know that Ford has more concrete plans for hybrids than GM but this might just be another example of myself not being particularly well informed.
I think the Volt is a distraction far more in image than substance an I don't see GM warning people off of it and pointing to their other plans.
"the big rub with CFs, tankless water heaters, solar arrays, etc is the up-front cost."
You are right.
It has always been a tough sell for anything that has a high up-front cost, even if you save money in the long run.
The smart investor is the one who has the vision to clearly see the long term savings and benefits.
Many states, including of course CA, have passed laws requiring that a certain % of utility power be generated from renewable energy sources by 202X.
That law has led to some nice innovations. Utilities here in CA have started to offer nice financing options for home installation of solar panels. There are even companies that will allow you to buy solar power. That is, you allow them to install solar panels on the roof, which they then maintain, and you just pay for the power you use.
I've spoken with some companies and they are clear that utilities are partnering to offer these new solar options in order to meet the renewable energy requirements.
The kicker to all this is that your total monthly bill (metered electricity + solar finance costs) can be lower after you go solar using some of these options. I am working now to install solar on my parents home. I'm expecting $0 down and a lower monthly bill, but it may end up being $1000 down. I'll report back in the following weeks.
I just started the process so I don't have experience yet to share, but here is the program I'm using.
http://solarlosangeles.1bog.org/current-los-angeles-solar-group-purchase/
Here is another lease option:
http://solarfinancing.1bog.org/
It sounds EXACTLY like what this thread is talking about. If solar pays for itself in the long run, then the only problem is the upfront investment. Well, it seems that the utilities and some private companies are sucking it up and helping to front the install costs in order to meet the State mandate.
Win, win!
larry-
you pretty much summed up all my issues regarding GM. too often they try to prove their 'leadership' via marketing rather than real world results. just toooo much hype.
alcatholic-
those are some good programs, and they do demonstrate potential.
still, i guess i'd still rather see more focus on the consumer. when possible, i'd rather subsidize consumers, not corporations. if companies have to compete for subsidies via the consumer, i think they'll be forced to be as innovative as possible.
"I noticed that Toyota would "deliver" on their sticker city/highway MPG and that the American cars always seemed to fall short "
It's true.
My 2004 Chrysler Sebring (2.5 liter 4 cylinder), was rated at 22/30 mpg. But, I could consistently only go 300 miles on 15 gallons of gas, meaning my "actual" mpg was 20.
That's pretty poor for a car with a 4 cylinder engine, and "very little "get up and go"
Post a Comment
<< Home