backtop

Print 41 comment(s) - last by Warren21.. on Jul 21 at 12:08 AM

Tesla Motors CEO standing next to a Model S electric sedan  (Source: extravaganzi)
Some argue claim overestimates, others think it might underestimate sales

Elon Musk has accomplished much in his life.  He built PayPal into the world's premiere online payment service, eventually provoking eBay, Inc. (EBAY) to scoop up the juicy property.  He then went on to create and lead the first firm to successfully and reliably send commercial satellite and cargo launches into Earth orbit -- SpaceX.  

But Mr. Musk is perhaps most passionate about creating the world's best electric vehicles and evangelizing this new form of transportation as CEO and founder of Tesla Motor Comp. (TSLA).

I. Elon Musk Offers Bold Prediction, Critics Respond

With his Model S mass market luxury sedan having launched in June, as promised, Mr. Musk was bullish, predicting to reporters, "In 20 years, more than half of new cars manufactured will be fully electric.  I feel actually quite safe in that bet.; that’s a bet I will put money on. … It’s probably going to be in the 12- to 15-year time frame."

Mr. Musk has a history of winning some risky bets.  Wall Street Journal writer Dan Neil found that out the hard way after he was forced to cough up $1,000 USD after losing his bet that the Model S would be delayed and fall short of promised specs.  The Tesla vehicle was both punctual and lived up to all the promised numbers.  Mr. Musk donated his winnings to the charity Doctors Without Borders.

Tesla Elon Musk
Tesla Motor Company CEO Elon Musk predicts half the cars sold by 2032 will be EVs. 
[Image Source: Michael Kelley]

But some take issue with Mr. Musk's latest bet.  Pike Research analyst Dave Hurst is offering to bet against Mr. Musk.

Mr. Hurst says the U.S. market on average is holding steady at about 15 million vehicles a year, a figure he says is unlikely to change given that the U.S. population is also holding steady.  He estimates that plug-in sales will grow by 32 percent per year, reaching only 220,000 units per year by 2020.  By 2032 sales would rise to 5 million units -- or roughly a third of the market.

But that's still substantially different from Mr. Musk's prediction so the semi-bullish analyst is taking on the fully-bullish industry figure.

Of course other pundits aren't even as kind to Mr. Musk's prediction as Mr. Hurst.  Conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh seized on recent severe thunderstorms in the Washington D.C. area as an opportunity to blast EVs, pointing out that if you owned an EV that was uncharged when the disaster hit, you would in theory be stranded in the disaster zone.  Of course, that comment ignores the fact that some EVs like General Motors Comp.'s (GM) Chevy Volt have a backup gas motor and can go hundreds of miles on that fallback.

This was not the first time Mr. Limbaugh lambasted EVs.  He's been on the warpath against the technology ever since President Obama proposed $7,500 tax credits for electric vehicles back in 2009.

II. Will Hockey Stick Math Lead to Wild EV Growth??

On the other hand, some bullish industry figures, say Mr. Hurst and Mr. Musk are underestimating potential sales.  Carlos Ghosn, CEO of Nissan Motor Comp., Ltd. (TYO:7201), predicts a so called "hockey-stick effect" -- a similar statistical method to one used by some controversial global warming researchers.

Nissan Leaf
Nissan CEO Carlos Ghosn expects an avalanche of EV growth. [Image Source: Keral]

The hockey stick is a term referring to the idea that some trend will slowly progress, but then hit a breakthrough point where it grows wildly, before returning to steadier growth.

In terms of EV sales, Mr. Ghosn expects customer familiarity with EVs, availability of charging stations, availability of EVs in all segments, cheaper manufacturing, and superior range/reliability will cumulatively propel EVs into such an avalanche of sales growth.

President Obama has taken a stance similar to Mr. Musk's offering a more conservative 1 million EV by 2015 prediction.

EV sales have slumped in recent months, and some startups like Fisker have struggled to deliver on their promises. That said, Tesla is giving EVs a good name as an exception in an industry of struggling players.  Its Model S is sold out.

Sources: Reuters, Pike Research, Green Car Reports


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
The Technology Needs to Get There
By WalksTheWalk on 7/18/2012 1:44:58 PM , Rating: 2
Before mass adoption takes place, there are several things needed:

First, the battery technology needs to be able to increase storage density, or the motors need to be able to use it much more efficiently. At any rate, vehicle range needs to be greatly increased.

Second, charging needs to be very quick and distributed throughout the infrastructure. No one's going to wait an hour for a charge when they are taking a long distance trip.

Third, the capacity of electricity generation needs to be increased. The grid is near capacity, or at capacity in some cases, and adding more demand is going to increase operating costs. All of the political posturing around this topic isn't going to let it happen any time soon.

The costs need to be equal to, or close to gasoline powered vehicles or it just won't make economic sense for most people. I would love an EV that uses locally produced energy but it's just not there yet.




RE: The Technology Needs to Get There
By geddarkstorm on 7/18/2012 1:54:26 PM , Rating: 2
Absolutely. The converse is EVs could stay the same as now, but gas prices could shoot through the roof, and force everyone to EVs out of the same economic sense that is currently keeping them away. I don't think that's likely to happen, and likely if EVs catch on it'll be due to a technological breakthrough, but a lot can change in 20 years.


RE: The Technology Needs to Get There
By WalksTheWalk on 7/18/2012 3:06:33 PM , Rating: 3
You're right on, although I think it would take a larger shift in gas prices to provide enough incentive to switch to EV under the current state of EV technology. Right now, you're sacrificing a lot of things: range, temperature affected range, time to recharge, lack of recharge stations, battery longevity, etc.

If gas prices were shift quite a bit higher I think that would drive adoption of smaller cars with better mileage more than EV adoption. It all depends on how high they go. :)


RE: The Technology Needs to Get There
By JediJeb on 7/18/2012 6:00:38 PM , Rating: 2
Gasoline prices would need to rise dramatically to be the forcing variable many want it to be. When it went from ~$2/gallon to ~$4/gallon I did the math and for myself, to replace my truck which gets 17mpg with a vehicle that gets 34mpg cutting my fuel bill in half, I would need to find a vehicle getting 34mpg that I could get for $100 per month payments or less to break even using the saving in fuel to pay for the new vehicle. That doesn't even take into account that my insurance would probably go up when switching to a newer vehicle. Now if I were spending $500 per month on fuel then I could make the switch if I found a car I could buy for $250 per month payments, still that would fall into the Yaris, Versa, or Fiesta base models if looking at new cars and maybe not even that.

If someone already owns a vehicle that gets 25mpg and wants to cut their fuel bill in half and pay for a car getting 50mpg on fuel saving alone they would need to be driving 3,125 miles per month to even make that work out on a $250/month car payment. Of course if going totally electric you would have most of that $500/month fuel bill to put towards an EV but that works out to only $30,000 over 5 years, and currently it would be difficult to find an EV you can get for that price that also would get 156.25 miles per charge(3,125 miles / 20 work days a month) which is needed to just get to work and back. If you drive less per day to work then you have less savings on fuel to put towards the EV thus you have to find an even cheaper EV. Make gasoline $8/gallon and you have to drive 78.125 miles per work day to break even with a $30,000 EV, $10/gallon gasoline it drops to 62.5 miles and once you get closer to what many actually will drive these you hit $20/gallon gasoline driving 31.25 miles per day to break even when buying a $30,000 EV. Now if the average EV costs $40,000 you will need gasoline to be $26.6 per gallon to break even driving 31.25 miles per day if moving up from a car that already gets 25mpg. If your current vehicle gets 30mpg or higher then the price of gasoline really jumps up there to break even on fuel savings alone.

This is exactly why EVs will need to be much cheaper, have much longer range per charge or very short charge times and have equal performance compared to gasoline vehicles for them to be adopted in mass. Maybe in 20 years this can happen, and it will probably be a combination of better EVs and higher fuel prices that push their adoption, but for fuel prices alone to do it any time soon, it would kill the current economy to the point that nobody would be able to afford them. Too bad the people pushing them so hard right now can't do even the simple math to see whether or not it is feasible.


RE: The Technology Needs to Get There
By Dr of crap on 7/19/2012 8:25:28 AM , Rating: 2
While I understand your thinking, and the math (I've done it myself) - do you really think the average driver / car buyer does this kind of thinking / math???

Answer - NOPE.

If gas were to rise to $5 you can bet that a BIG amount of people would rush out to get either a high mpg small car or some hybrid or EV. Not even considering the upfront cost they would have to shell out and not understand that the savings they are looking for won't happen for years!


RE: The Technology Needs to Get There
By JediJeb on 7/19/2012 1:52:26 PM , Rating: 3
Yup, I understand that completely. That is why every time someone I know says they are going to do just that, I hit them with the reality of what it will actually cost them. If only someone would get on a public stage and show the reality of the situation, people might begin to listen. Unfortunately the media currently embraces the "green" movement and would never allow anyone the opportunity to inform the general public as it would defeat their whole agenda.


By web2dot0 on 7/20/2012 6:54:50 AM , Rating: 2
It's sorta like buying organic foods.

Yes, it'll cost more. But it sure as hell feels better afterwards!

For those who can afford it (which will be many by 2035), as long as it is a competitive offering, people will buy it. They don't need to "beat" a gas engine.

It has clearly shown that the general population's perception have changed over the years and people are much more environmentally aware. You cannot put a price on that.

Who's wrong with green movement? If it cost you more to eat organic foods ..... well, eat less!! Is that so wrong? If you can afford it, I say go for it. There's no agenda here.

We have all failed to realize the true cost of using oil. The environmental damage caused by oil companies are never taken amount into the total bottom line. That's why gas is cheap. There's a price to be paid for extracting oil from oil sands. We just ignore that cost and left it for future cost that government (you and I) will spend fixing the mess.

Why do you think China is growing so quickly? Because they follow all the environmental laws? The cost of ownership there is all about "what can I get right now".

Why do you think gas in US is 1/2 the price as in Europe?


RE: The Technology Needs to Get There
By MrBlastman on 7/18/2012 3:04:52 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Third, the capacity of electricity generation needs to be increased. The grid is near capacity, or at capacity in some cases, and adding more demand is going to increase operating costs. All of the political posturing around this topic isn't going to let it happen any time soon.


This is the biggest problem. Everything else is trivial. We can increase the technology of the cars all we want but... if we don't produce enough power to recharge them everything is moot.

When the hippies wake up and realize Nuclear is good, not bad, they might get their "magic" cars all across America. Until then it is a nice dream.

I think we'll see a shift in the future from above ground, massive Nuclear plants to below ground, subterranean sealed, limited capacity nuclear "cells." These will generate enough power for the local community and will be serviced every decade or so with new fuel. They'll solve a lot of problems and reduce costs dramatically with maintenance of infrastructure such as power lines (the high-tension long distance lines will mostly become a thing of the past). These nuclear "cells" of course will be a stopgap to the next advancement in power generation that notches us up further the Kardashev scale, but until then, they will suffice.

I think.

None of that will happen if the environmentalists and the public do not embrace it. It makes complete sense, but, when did the average person make sense of things that make sense?

Until then, we can all continue to fantasize about these cars.


RE: The Technology Needs to Get There
By FITCamaro on 7/18/2012 3:23:49 PM , Rating: 2
Pretty much considering they're trying to make electricity vastly more expensive under current models of adding very little insanely expensive capacity(wind+solar) while removing a lot of far cheaper capacity(coal).

Some areas are looking at 400% increases in the next few years.


RE: The Technology Needs to Get There
By Jeffk464 on 7/18/2012 3:56:03 PM , Rating: 2
There are plans to make electricity for EV's dirt cheap so long as you charge off peak.


By JediJeb on 7/18/2012 6:02:36 PM , Rating: 2
It won't be near me if they are forced to replace all the coal powered plants here with something else. Since almost every plant for over 200 miles from me is coal fired right now that would be a lot of plants being built and needing to be paid for.


RE: The Technology Needs to Get There
By TSS on 7/19/2012 11:14:44 AM , Rating: 1
Nuclear may be good, but it aint going to cut it.

A while back i calculated that, if the entire US car fleet consisted of chevy volt's you'd have to generate about 20% more electricity in total then you do today to charge all of them. The number is higher then the total amount of electricity generated by nuclear in the US.

But your current reactors are also horribly obsolete and could use replacing, or else they will have to be shut down.

So if half of all cars are EV's by 2032, considering no reactor of today will be in operation then because it's simply too dangerous, it would mean you'd have to rebuild all your current day nuclear + add 50% + upgrade the grid to handle the new load. Within 30 years. In addition to the "normal" growing need of energy.

That's never going to happen. Nevermind the actual physical difficulties, it'll fail on the very first question: Who is going to pay for all of this?

as a sidenote, mentioning the word "reactor" more then 3 times makes a post spam huh? This spam system is really getting on my nerves.....


RE: The Technology Needs to Get There
By Spacy on 7/19/2012 3:05:54 PM , Rating: 2
I disagree with our grid is over taxed, if you look at peak demand for energy in daytime use; is at near capacity. At night time (about 9h worth every 24h period) we generate at 50% or less generation. I do not believe long term commutes will be a good idea as batteries require long charge periods, but short term driving and recharge every night would be a great way to lower our gas demands. Steady state generation well also reduce energy wastage as we lose lots of energy throttling our power plants up and down for most forms of energy generation. I know all this because I work in the energy generation field in Canada. Most cities in the world follow the same degree of day/night shift.

The only problem is most people would still charge there car when they get home at 6pm not setting up an automatic system at night after 10pm. The smart grid would solve this by charging us two rates our normal daytime rate for on peak but a much cheaper night time rate. The system can send a signal out to homes letting the homes know when the cheap rate starts nightly. Then start charging our cars and washing our dishes. Allowing us to make best use of our current system. Not having an overloaded day and a under used night.


By Jedi2155 on 7/19/2012 11:29:36 PM , Rating: 2
There is a lot of work in this field already with Smart Meters that support ZigBee Smart Energy profile that was created in 2007. They are already working on a version 2.0 that should coming out anytime now.

The Volt already has a lot logic programmed on it to handle this as well. GM is planning on working with utilities to send a Demand Response Load Control event (temporarily stop charging when the grid is over taxed), through the OnStar system to enable it.

What benefit is this to you? Well, my utility pays me $200/summer in order to give them the option of shutting off my central AC up to 15 times per season. In order to reduce demand during peak loads. They could do something like this for EV's as well thus reducing strain on the grid.

Utilities are working very closely with many EV manufacturers in order to ensure their system is okay, and that EV manufacturers are happy too. After all, a new EV is a new customer for the utility so they have every reason to support EVs.


By Jedi2155 on 7/19/2012 4:16:26 PM , Rating: 2
Generation is not always the issue with the power, most of system is based on peak demand, meaning there should always be at least enough generation to meet the absolute peak demand. Optimally most electric vehicles will be charged at night where there is already plenty of spare capacity.


RE: The Technology Needs to Get There
By Jeffk464 on 7/18/2012 3:53:07 PM , Rating: 2
He's crazy, I've got to say it will be closer to 43%


By MrBlastman on 7/18/2012 3:56:24 PM , Rating: 2
Nah, it is forty two percent. 42 is the answer for everything, you know. ;)


RE: The Technology Needs to Get There
By Jeffk464 on 7/18/2012 3:54:05 PM , Rating: 2
electric motors are extremely efficient. The main problem is just the cost of the battery packs.


RE: The Technology Needs to Get There
By Shig on 7/18/12, Rating: 0
RE: The Technology Needs to Get There
By Dr of crap on 7/19/2012 8:29:11 AM , Rating: 2
So let's see.
Yep $0 down - $40,000 for the Volt - at 7 year loan = $476 per month not adding on interest!
Yep great deal. You must be able to afford that. Not many can with mortgage, daycare, health insurance ...ect...!


By JediJeb on 7/19/2012 1:56:59 PM , Rating: 2
Sounds more like the plan is to take the $0 down lease, then not make any payments. That way after the repo the car in a few months you use another name to get another $0 down lease and repeat. Never pay for another car again.

That is the only way you can come out ahead on this plan, as long as you never get caught ;)


RE: The Technology Needs to Get There
By Paj on 7/19/2012 8:21:58 AM , Rating: 1
Or, the cost of environmental externalities inherent in any ICE should be reflected in the price. EVs will then become competitive.


By JediJeb on 7/19/2012 1:58:51 PM , Rating: 2
Factor in the environmental costs of manufacturing the EVs and their supporting technology and you will probably come out even with the ICE vehicles.


Kind of vague title
By nafhan on 7/18/2012 1:56:14 PM , Rating: 2
What Musk is actually saying:
quote:
In 20 years, more than half of new cars manufactured will be fully electric.
Could be interpreted quite differently than:
quote:
Tesla, SpaceX Founder Predicts 50 Percent of Cars Will be EVs by 2032
Anyway, 50 percent of the cars built in 2032 seems pretty reasonable. I think there's a good chance we'll have overcome a lot of the capacity and price barriers stopping wide scale adoption by that point. Plus, it seems likely that gas prices will continue to climb.

I look forward to future electric cars mostly for the convenience of not having to go to a gas station ever again. A self driving electric car sounds like a perfect form of transportation to me. If we have something like that by 2032, I will be happy.




RE: Kind of vague title
By Ranari on 7/18/2012 2:46:36 PM , Rating: 2
I wouldn't be surprised if we also start to see a change in the way cities are built/expanded in the United States in the coming 30-50 years. I think we'll start to see cities grow up, rather than out.


RE: Kind of vague title
By nafhan on 7/18/2012 3:07:14 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know. If energy costs in general go way up, maybe. I think self driving cars may bring changes to the way we travel, though.

I, for instance, wouldn't mind a 2 hour each way commute if I could sleep, read, and play games the whole time while not having to deal with carpooling or public transportation.


RE: Kind of vague title
By Reclaimer77 on 7/18/2012 3:55:42 PM , Rating: 1
I don't care what he meant, the dude is fucking insane if he actually believes that.

Of course it's not surprising since he is heavily invested in EV's going big. Not really news worthy imo.

In other news, Michelin CEO states 50% of all cars will use their tires by 2032.


RE: Kind of vague title
By nafhan on 7/18/2012 5:01:15 PM , Rating: 2
So... do you have a reason to believe that, or do you just think he's wrong because he CEO's an electric car company? You could look at this the other way around: he's certain enough in his belief that he co-founded Tesla. Remember, this guy wasn't brought on as a CEO to build up a struggling brand or something, he was one of the founders and initial financiers. He very likely got into this business because he believes it's the future of the automobile. I think that gives him at least a little more credibility.


RE: Kind of vague title
By Shig on 7/18/2012 5:12:32 PM , Rating: 1
I would say his credibility comes from the fact that he basically started three different companies that are valued in excess of 1 billion dollars. Paypal, SpaceX, Tesla, oh and he's on the board for SolarCity, which will probably have a large IPO later this year.


RE: Kind of vague title
By Reclaimer77 on 7/18/2012 7:52:17 PM , Rating: 2
Paypal was pretty much the only thing he did that didn't need massive taxpayer money to get off the ground. Tesla is a joke.

SolarCity? Just another green subsidy project.


RE: Kind of vague title
By nafhan on 7/18/2012 9:49:17 PM , Rating: 2
Seriously, if you don't found and sell at least two companies for several hundred million dollars you've got no credibility...


RE: Kind of vague title
By Paj on 7/19/2012 8:29:55 AM , Rating: 2
Every energy industry receives subsidies. Should we subsidise old technology, or new?


RE: Kind of vague title
By titanmiller on 7/18/2012 8:11:34 PM , Rating: 2
Elon Musk must have also invented a time machine because I don't know how that man finds the time to do so much!


hard to predict 20 years in the future
By PaFromFL on 7/19/2012 8:41:58 AM , Rating: 2
A large percentage of vehicles could be powered electrically two decades from now if
1. Green non-corn biofuel production never becomes practical
1. We start the design and construction of nuke plants today
2. Asians keep buying lots of oil (no economic meltdown)
3. New laws allow golf-cart sized urban vehicles on roads
4. Charging times decrease dramatically (battery swaps?)
5. Politicians restrict the use of hydrocarbon fuels.

There are too many greedy people with vested interests to predict what will happen. Nuke plants probably won't make much of dent in 20 years. Asian economic meltdown is likely. Automobile manufacturers will block the legalization of cheap cars. Battery swapping stations might work if subsidized by governments at first. Politicians love to increase their power and bribe money by restricting access to popular goods and services.




By shin0bi272 on 7/19/2012 11:34:07 AM , Rating: 1
dont mistake self interest with greed. You want your job dont you? does that make you greedy? no.

Nuke plants will be stopped by massive government red tape and ecomentalists protesting their creation (even though nuke plants create no co2 emissions and make hundreds of megawatts of power cheaply for the greenies to run their electric cars on)... hell we havent built a new oil refinery since the 70's either... and that we could really use.

China's slowdown is looking more and more evident but with the right us president we might be able to get the people in hong kong and taiwan to overthrow the commies (you know instead of throwing themselves off the top of the buildings) and then their economy would really take off.

Auto manufacturers will sell anything they can make a profit on. If the government allows those stupid golfcarts known as smart cars on the roads and the maker can make a profit on it they'll sell them. Might not be chevy or ford making them to begin with but if people wanted them there would be enough pressure for them to start. Again not greed but motivated self interest.

Battery swapping wont work not even if its subsidized... not only is that going to add another couple hundred billion to the budget for the government to push their environmentalist message but the batteries are made in china or japan so its not like any politician will give 2 shits about putting money behind them because it wont get them elected. So there will be no subsidy. You are forgetting that there has to be demand for something before it can happen. there's no demand for an electric car outside of southern california and washington dc.

Politicians have only restricted access to guns. everything else they try to get you to buy so they can tax it. Look at obamacare... you are now mandated to buy health insurance and the government is placing a tax on that insurance purchase! Even though you have to purchase it IN THE STATE YOU LIVE IN AND IT DOESNT CROSS STATE LINES TO GET TO YOU... WHICH IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL! They also are putting new taxes on every medical device you buy including tooth brushes and condoms. They arent limiting your access to them they are making you buy things so that they can tax you for doing it!


prediction
By zendiego on 7/18/2012 3:06:26 PM , Rating: 2
in 2032 godzilla will wh00p as on anyone pretending to be Tesla's protoge and eat all ev's to fuel his anger at humanity.




wh00p ass correction
By zendiego on 7/18/2012 3:09:22 PM , Rating: 2
as = ass, protoge = protege




Musk is being pessimistic
By MisterEd22 on 7/18/2012 5:25:05 PM , Rating: 2
Musk has stated in the past his estimates of future battery cost reductions and as I recall they were around 6% per year
or so. But that assumes essentially the same battery chemistry we have today, which is very expensive (the battery pack apparently accounts for more than half the base cost of his $79,000 Model S version). I believe, based on recent battery advances which I don't believe warrant any skepticism, that Musk's estimate is unrealistically pessimistic. My own personal estimate is that battery costs will plummet on the shoulders of new technology now practically at the commercialization stage.




yippee
By undummy on 7/18/2012 7:18:34 PM , Rating: 2
Rolling power outages, storm outages, weeks without power... going EV should be fun fun fun.

When the demand for electricity goes up, so will its cost.

There is no magic energy solution. Quit dreaming.

I think that the recent DC storm/outage should knock some sense into some people. And, everyone already forgot California's rolling blackouts. When there is no place to charge, what do you do?




pretty sure
By shin0bi272 on 7/19/2012 11:18:35 AM , Rating: 2
Pretty sure that they said something similar in 1913, 1925, 1950 and 1985 when some new electric car came out back then too. Fact is that while theyve come a long way there's just a lack of interest in them as long as theres a better alternative in gasoline.




By Warren21 on 7/21/2012 12:08:31 AM , Rating: 2
Do they speak English in Bullish?

Say bullish ONE more goddamn time! I dare you! I double dare you motherf***er!

* * *

In all seriousness though, please use another word. Seeing a seldom-used word like that used no less than three times within a few paragraphs, especially twice in one sentence is distracting. It's a word that sticks out on its own -- let alone stacked on top of itself in but a handful of rows.

You also use it quite often in your other articles. I guess it's a word you like. Don't burn its impact by using it all the time.




"Well, there may be a reason why they call them 'Mac' trucks! Windows machines will not be trucks." -- Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer











botimage
Copyright 2013 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki