Existing European/Japanese/US car manufacturers were happy enough to trundle along with existing ICE cars as it required less effort & gave better profits.
They & Chinese (electric) car/bus makers are the reason our planet is going to improve - ~0 air pollution in populated areas and massive reduction in nuisance engine noises.
What changed the general attitude was half a milion people that pre-ordered Model3 with $1000 cash advance, in a matter of days, without knowing almost anything about it (other than "it's a Tesla").
[edit] Why the downvote? That event was obviously a huge wake-up call that proved to everyone there is real customer demand for electric cars, and that existing manufacturers are risking their future if they don't jump on the bandwagon.
Citation needed.
Nissan has sold 400,000 of them to date.
I believe that once the initial backorder is addressed and Model 3's get some miles under their belts we will see the various subpar engineering & manufacturing issues highlighted in the teardowns come back to bite.
https://www.motortrend.com/news/tesla-model-3-teardown-decon...
The model 3 excels where the SV talent was brought to bear but it's long term durability is clearly suspect; too many parts, too many fasteners on too heavy a frame. And that will have serious consequences for the brand over time.
Between 2010 and 2015, the Leaf had a 24kWh battery. They added a 30kWh option in 2016, then launched an all-new model in 2017 with a 40kWh battery. At this year's CES, Nissan announced a 64kWh model. There's a clear inflection point that coincides with the announcement of the Model 3, which is matched by several other manufacturers. The huge amount of media attention and customer interest convinced the motor industry that there is a substantial latent demand for affordable EVs with >200mi range.
It's perfectly reasonable to argue that established manufacturers are making better EVs because the technology improved, but Tesla drove a lot of that improvement. They were the first manufacturer to grasp the significance of battery thermal management, something that Nissan is still struggling with. They were the first to demonstrate the improvements in interior capacity and comfort that come from a purpose-built EV platform rather than retrofitting electric propulsion to an ICE platform. The threat posed by the Gigafactory persuaded/forced LG, Samsung and Panasonic to seriously ramp up production of 21700 cells.
Tesla aren't a great car company in my opinion, I think they're hugely over-valued, I think there's a real chance that they'll be bankrupt within the next five years, but they did something very important by taking a moonshot on a truly modern EV.
Nissan is way more effective than Tesla at mass-production, yes. But there's not one single market where Leaf is their most successful model (certainly true for 2017, I suspect for 2018 htat's also true).
[edit] Maybe that's true; I'm not saying that Tesla will win the market long term.
To make an analogy: you can say Tesla is Blackberry, not Apple. Maybe they don't "own" the smartphone market, and maybe in the end they day - BUT, they left their mark. Thay have had decisive influence in the industry.
The Nissan Leaf? From where I stand, it looks like a Nokia Communicator - or worse. A product that does sell, true - but mostly because of the parent company; eventually it doesn't leave a lasting mark.
I suspect the LEAF has done a lot more to drive Chargepoint network adoption, as just one example of a market development where the LEAF is more influential than Tesla.
https://www.nissan-global.com/EN/DOCUMENT/PDF/AR/2018/AR18_E...
I think it will be years before we know whether Tesla’s gamble will pay of for the company.
https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/news/the-top-5-most-popular-ca...
https://cleantechnica.com/2018/09/09/tesla-model-3-becomes-1...
Total worldwide sales of the leaf are north of 400,000 units.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissan_Leaf
"Global sales totaled over 380,000 Leafs by December 2018, making the Leaf the world's all-time best-selling highway-capable electric car."
That said, I was providing a counterpoint to the OP's statement that Japanese manufacturers weren't doing anything, when the facts clearly indicate otherwise.
This is in spite of Europe being a massive consumer of Japanese cars in general(Nissan & Toyota in particular).
Assuming Tesla 3 doesn't get down to sub €35k price in the next year, Hynudai Kona seems like it will be the best selling EV in Europe in 2019 (provided the end dealers don't mess it up)
Some other Japanese manufacturers:
Toyota, Honda, Daihatsu, Suzuki, Mazda, Mitsubishi, Subaru, Isuzu
Barring Toyota who at least made some effort with the Prius. What have the rest of those industry players done for EV adoption/advancement? Nothing. Some (even in 2019) still haven't made inroads into EV.
Toyota and Mazda have made a joint venture for electric vehicles. They will be releasing their first vehicles in 2020. I'm not sure why they waited this long. I think the main reason for Toyota was that the Prius has been absolutely dominating the Japanese market for years, thanks in part to rebates from the government. I think it's the normal desire of a big company to avoid cannibalizing their successful sales. As for Mazda, they bet big on their turbine engine and I think they didn't have enough money to invest in R&D -- you will note that they never made a hybrid.
I have no idea what Honda is doing. At one point they claimed that all of their cars were going to have electric drive trains. However, they put all of their eggs in the hydrogen infrastructure that almost certainly isn't going to pan out. They have stopped production of the hybrid Insight in Japan, so I don't really know what their next move is. Apparently they have the Clarity (a plug in hybrid) which I've never seen in Japan. However, I would not discount them as, like I said, they've seen the electric writing on the wall for a long time.
I was just about to say that I would be surprised if Suzuki puts out an electric vehicle. The main office is literally down the street from my mother in laws place and I know lots of people who work there. However, I just did a google search and it appears that Suzuki has joined Toyota and Mazda in their joint venture and will release an EV in 2020 (however, reading between the lines, I think it might be a plugin hybrid aimed at continental Asian markets).
As for Daihatsu, they have made some concept EV cars. I've got an article from 2010 where they made an EV version of the Mira. Keep in mind that Daihatsu has been experimenting with EV for a long time. They did the EV1 in 1973! They also have a whole range of commercial "cars" (more like golf carts, really) that you frequently see on Japanese roads. Basically one-seaters used for delivering things. I don't actually expect them to enter into the market seriously for at least 5 years, though, because they don't make expensive cars. Although the prices have risen a bit recently, the main thing about Daihatsu has been that you can buy a decent car for ~$10K. It's just not feasible to build EVs at that price point without going the golf cart route, I think.
Subaru used to sell an EV in Japan. It didn't do very well and I've probably only seen it once or twice on the road. I think they are currently out of the market, but apparently have plans to re-enter in 2021.
I don't know anything about Isuzu (except that they make a shit ton of kei-tra - ubiquitous white light "pickup" truck - that every single farmer in Japan owns). Apparently they have an electric truck, but it is quite big -- for hauling containers, etc. For consumer vehicles, I think they are in the same boat as Daihatsu -- their bread an butter is dirt cheap trucks that just aren't going to be feasible in EV forms for a while.
One of the things that might surprise you is that I've never, ever seen a Tesla on the road in Japan. Probably they don't sell them here. Nor have I seen a Chevy volt. In fact I have not seen a single EV that isn't Japanese. If I didn't read HN, I would have the impression that Japanese manufacturers were the only companies making EVs. Of course, we know that's not true, but it's easy to get a strange perspective when you only experience things in one country.
Having said that, I'll be curious to see if Toyota's decision to wait before making an EV will pay off. I tend to think that Nissan and Mitsubishi (having had EVs on the road for 8 years now) will have an advantage. However, it occurs to me that Nissan and Mitsubishi can't have been making much (if any) profit on their EV program, while Toyota has been making buckets off of the Prius. Also, Toyota, Mazda and apparently Suzuki are pooling their resources, which will reduce their initial cost to market, so it might actually pay off. Only time will tell.
But this is just to say that Japanese manufacturers have not been sitting on their hands (with the possible exception of Honda -- I have no idea what they are doing).
Wikipedia is telling me that Tesla delivered over 240K cars in 2018, which surprises me greatly.
Any time somebody already planned to replace their car and chooses electric over ICE is a win for the planet. It's also a health improvement for humans living in urban environments.
Tesla might not be selling that many cars, but they are the major reason why established brands like Volkswagen feel pressure to "catch up" and massively invest in new EV lineups. Once those companies have caught up in terms of technology and lineup they will massively outsell anything Tesla is capable of, helping reduce our impact on the climate and our health.
Of course public transport would be even better, but don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good
No. While Tesla is a factor, the major reason for the EV investment is new legislation and regulations being introduced in the EU, China, and the US.
Germany, for example, is talking about banning new ICE car sales by 2030: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-autos-emissions-germany-i...
Paris is talking about banning ICE cars from the city by 2030 and even banning diesel cars by 2024 (not very fair on diesel owners): http://fortune.com/2017/10/12/paris-combustion-engine-ban/
As part of Volkswagen's settlement agreement for the emissions scandal, VW is required to build an EV supercharger network in the US (Electrify America). VW's attitude is that since they need to build it they may as well make use of it: https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1116375_electrify-ameri...
I think Volkswagen will be the biggest producer of EVs within the next 3 years.
Toyota might overhaul them in the long run purely because Toyota is the world's biggest car company. But Toyota seems to be behind in their EV program. It'll be interesting to see how much ground (if any) Toyota will have lost to Volkswagen 10 years from now.
Indeed, according to [1] in the 1990s a Californian attempt to push ICE makers to produce EVs and "an alliance of the major automakers litigated [...] permitting the companies to produce super-low-emissions vehicles, natural gas vehicles, and hybrid cars in place of pure electrics." So demonstrably, ICE makers fight back when politicians try to force them to make EVs.
It is only because we have the Volt and the Leaf and the Kona the E-pace and the i3 and the e-golf and the Tesla that an ICE ban is on the table.
It's hard to say if we'd have that many EV options on the market without Tesla, or if the Toyota Prius would still be the pinnacle of EV technology.
It's feasible because batteries got better. If it had turned out that batteries couldn't be made better for some reason then the push would have been for hydrogen fuel cell cars in particular rather than electric vehicles in general. Hyundai makes a good hydrogen fuel cell car:
https://www.cnet.com/roadshow/reviews/2019-hyundai-nexo-prev...
> car makers would know as much, and could call the politicians' bluff by refusing to build EVs
That would fail and the car makers would have been fined. Volkswagen's outcomes after the emissions test cheating is the practical demonstration of this. They were required to meet a standard which they failed to meet and so there have been fines, jail time, and the company has consequently changed course.
This is sadly not really true, especially in China, the biggest electric vehicle market, where most of the electricity is coal-generated. You end up with a car requiring more energy (e.g. more fossil fuels) to produce AND to run.
The situation is not very pretty in the USA yet either, but if you are hopeful in the next decade that the USA will decarbonate their electricity, then maybe you will get a positive return on GHG emissions over your car lifetime.
Electric cars as a means to reduce GHG emissions todaly only make real sense in specific countries with a low-emissions electricity profile, such as France and northern Europe (Sweden etc).
Waste from coal powered electricity isn't emitted by every consumer in populated areas. It's emitted in a plant which
a) generally has more advanced particular matter capture technology &
b) to reduce emission further, only the place emitting the emissions needs to be upgraded(not the vehicle of every end consumer of that energy) &
c) is more readily replaceable by a cleaner source with minimal disruption.
Look at what happened in France when the government changed its mind on which carburant is cleaner and tried to force millions of consumer via taxes.
Also, keep in mind that China is trying to get cleaner electricity as shown by the giant damns they are building.
In Northern California, you are looking at 0 to 30% of electricity coming from fossil fuels, of which is almost entirely natural gas. An EV in NorCal is almost certainly polluting a lot less than an ICE car.
I highly doubt that the process of replacing a car does not result in a huge negative impact on the planet that has to be "paid off" over time through the gains of switching to an electric car.
Basically, don't you start in the negatives when replacing a car with an electric one?
People who regularly change their cars regularly change their cars ...
Yes, they still have an impact, but it's less than the impact they'd have had if they bought an equivalent petrol/diesel vehicle.
This also means we'll have much less need for parking lots, etc. Parking infrastructure consumes a huge portion of prime urban land. Curbside parking alone is sometimes estimated at 10%.
Thus, it would also reduce sprawl, and thereby reduce both commute times and the amount of energy required to commute.
All of those things would be eco-friendly, if we can move in that direction. Particularly once we shut down all the coal plants.
Queuing theory forms a mathematical basis for analyzing the problem. So far its been heavily analyzed and applied towards dynamic pricing models. But if you want to replace cars people need to feel confident they are going to have a ride available in a short amount of time and not be price gouged.
When you factor in not needing to find parking, and no need to walk to and from your parking spot, it absolutely saves time.
Electric scooters and e-bikes provide hope of fixing this last mile problem, but they're not yet universal enough.
I think we should laud Tesla and other similar companies for providing a no-compromises solution that results in immediate positive effects on the environment.
California, for example, is only slightly less densely populated than France. Nevada is slightly less dense than Norway, but 2.2m of the 3m population live in the Las Vegas Valley, that makes up less than a percent of the total land area, so most of the population live in an area more than dense enough for successful public transit.
There are certainly really low density areas where trains and buses have less utility, but most people don't live there, or they wouldn't have been so low density.
And this is after a century of neglecting public transport. If there was more investment in public transport in the denser areas, density would likely increase further, because public transport hubs tends to drive up footfall to businesses nearby.
Anecdotally, I would claim that a lot more places in Europe with similar density have their density organized around existing city centers, plazas/squares, and other focus points, which makes public transit far more effective. The overall density may be similar (for instance, I live in a major European city and there's farmland next to me) but housing is more concentrated around specific points. Destinations such as grocery stores seem more conveniently located, at least in Switzerland, where every train station and major bus stop seems to have a selection of stores in the immediate vicinity as well as a large amount of housing centered around it, with density decreasing as one moves farther from the transit point.
It doesn't seem like that's the case in the vast majority of the US. While the density of California may be similar to that of France, it seems like people occupy much more of the land.
Here's an article I found that happens to illustrate what I mean, but it unfortunately only has data for a few places: https://www.citylab.com/life/2018/02/theres-a-better-way-to-...
Yet we still had perfectly functioning public transit.
Sure, there are definitive advantages that arise over time once you already have it, such as clustering of shops near transit hubs instead of spread out all over the place, but it still works.
It boils down to willingness to invest. You need to commit to ensuring sufficient frequency and routes for years to change habits even if it operates at a loss.
This is the real problem. You need to be prepared to put the service in before the demand is sufficient to really justify it, because the long term social impact justifies it. Do that, and it shapes the landscape. I mean, the train did that in the US too when it first arrived: entire towns sprung up around access to transit. The convenience of cars would make it harder to cause a reversal, but it's just a matter of which benefits you need to create.
So it's down to political will and lack of public support. The density is a red herring.
As I said, there are quite a few more options nowadays for the last-mile: shared bikes, electric scooters/bicycles, or even Uber/Lyft/rideshare. This should further increase the viability of public transit even in areas of the US in which it wasn't previously viable.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Z%C3%BCrich [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_b...
https://electrek.co/2018/10/25/tesla-network-elon-musk-compe...
Some problems I had were that sometimes the car wasn't where it was supposed to be, a couple of times the car was double booked, and quite often the cars had other people's rubbish in them. One time the car was full of sand (clearly someone had been to the beach).
I think in my case I'd always prefer to have my own car.
These are not things that Elon will ever personally experience.
Obviously, it's difficult to square that theory with the "Public transit won't work in America as the population density is too low" line of thought so you probably have to choose one or the other.
[1] https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-busy-street-scene-in-city-...
On cars, I agree with you, people are very irrational when it comes to cars. I'd be in favor of a massive vehicle miles traveled tax, to repair our roads and to tax emissions from transit. But the simple fact is people love being in their own car and there's no other viable option for most people.
Furthermore, even if you magic a train system into existence, you still don't solve the battery/energy storage situation with trains (which will never have the will or funding or political backing to ever be built, as we are seeing over and over). Without batteries or nuclear (another two train-like near-impossible task), we'll still need natural gas peakers, and we won't solve climate change. Batteries are the only area we're moving forward, and that's why Tesla is doing amazing good for the planet.
It seems that trains (intercity) can work in some countries (Japan for example), but in most countries these days it is more expensive to take a train than a flight (the UK, Germany for example)!
And these are densely populated areas. I can only imagine how ridiculous that would be in the US which is sparsely populated.
A note on peak energies is spot on as well - if it is difficult to balance a network with a varying consumption that would be even a bigger challenge when production is nondeterministic (solar, wind) as well.
While I definitely support battery storage development, the truth is that fossil-based plants are going to be needed for another few decades so the operators could balance the network. For example, the recently installed battery in Australia could provide electricity to San Francisco just for 9 minutes (if I did my math correctly) which is probably not even enough time to start another plant.
EDIT: 11 minutes : https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=129MWh+%2F+(5740+GWh+%...)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_rail_tran...
Tesla is doing the best for planet Earth of any company on the planet. Without them we would not be seeing traditional autos move away from fossil fuel vehicles - the margins and established knowledge would have been too good to just abandon it.
Obviously, you have a sound argument(s) to support your claim, right?
Is there really anything that bad about this message to the workforce? I feel like 95% of what was said is implied at other places and when that's the reality but it's never spoken of it would probably create an even higher level of anxiety? Maybe the more extended life of bigger and more dug in companies offer some sort of incentives or worker's rights that alleviate some of those anxieties?
I guess I feel like what's being said isn't surprising nor is it that remarkable, to me. What would be surprising or remarkable is if the message was: You don't have to work so hard, we're hiring 7% more people because we feel like it's a nice thing to do and regardless of our performance the failures of this company or the products we make will never be your (the workers) fault.
I'm sure everything I just said is stupid but, even if the message from Tesla rubs people the wrong way I somehow feel like the harsh truth might just be an OK pill to swallow compared to the, "Aren't you going at least buy me dinner before you... " type message / ethos that I see and have felt in corporate environments for decades?
No—there's nothing wrong with it. The results might be bad, though.
2019 will be hard for Tesla and its workforce. When things are hard, people start asking the question "Is it worth it?"
This could very well have been the very best way to handle the business necessity of reducing the workforce by 7%; it just might have some bad consequences that were unavoidable when the available business options are: be unprofitable or layoff workers.
My comment was aimed at the realities (2019 will be hard for Tesla and employees)—not a moral comment on the action of laying off people.
I am curious if there is a better way to right size a company after it has become more bloated than it needs to be than a blunt instrument like layoffs.
But this is hard, simultaneously telling your workforce:
…But keep your heads up, it's for the planet! At some point these thousands of folks that remain are going to start asking "Is it worth it?" That coupled with legitimate competition from their "entrenched" competitors, 2019 looks to be a very difficult year for Tesla.I still hope they succeed; I just hope the real, human costs are worth it.