Electric Vehicles

The news that Petaluma, Sonoma County’s second largest city, became the first in the nation to ban future construction of gas stations resonated around the country. True, they already had 16, and a 17th will be probably built at some point once it gets out of court, but the singularly audacious move of saying “Enough!” drew national attention.

It was against this background that Matt Metzler, a member of the Sonoma Community Services and Environmental Commission, spoke up at their March 10 meeting about a plan to install up to 14 new electric vehicle (EV) chargers in Sonoma, to meet the city’s climate priorities. “I want to express my fear that five or 10 years from now, we’re going to be scrambling and realize we didn’t build nearly enough EV charging stations,” said Metzler, predicting a future where there are very few gas-powered vehicles.

“Everyone is going to be clamoring for EV charging stations,” Metzler told the city’s sustainability coordinator, Travis Wagner, suggesting that the urgency “be forwarded to city council with all due haste.”

The commission was hearing a presentation from Wagner, the 59-year-old former professor of environmental science who joined the city just over a year ago in the newly-created sustainability coordinator role. The part-time position was added because of public interest and pressure from the Community Services and Environmental Commission itself for the city to create policies connected to climate action.

As Wagner said, “the city lacked expertise in that area of climate action,” and he was well-positioned to provide that expertise ‒ and, as a Springs-area resident, well-located.

To meet the need for EV charging stations, Wagner drafted an implementation strategy to roll out up to 14 publicly available high-voltage L2 charging stations (see sidebar) in the city over the next three years. The city council in November had asked Wagner to review six possible actions over the next three years, including identifying charging opportunities in the downtown; upgrading the existing chargers in the parking lot behind the Sebastiani Theatre at 152 E. Napa St.; and looking at the police station, fire station and Depot Park as possible locations for public chargers.

At present there is only one functioning city-owned EV charger, in the 152 E. Napa Street lot. Four other chargers are privately managed but accessible to the public.

Wagner’s report deflates some of the city’s suggestions, specifically pushing back on the police station on First Street West and the fire station on Second Street West, both of which he said were too expensive or impractical to meet near-term goals. Likewise the idea of providing Plaza-area charging stations ran up against the difficulty of supplying electricity to power such high-voltage chargers, and code requirements to provide a van-accessible charging station where four or fewer EV parking stalls are planned.

Only the Depot Park location proved practical, and only because a mid-2020 construction accident severed the gas line serving the Depot Park Museum. Since the gas line needs to be reconstructed anyway, it can be relocated farther from the electric panel and the panel rebuilt to allow for two L2 chargers nearby.

There was also the question of who such publicly-available and city-financed charging stations would benefit. While much of Sonoma’s economy is built around tourism, it’s a day-trip or weekend destination for most, said Wagner, and with the increasing range of all-electric vehicles, many visitors from the Bay Area may not even need to recharge their vehicles.

With the increased usage of gas-electric hybrid or electric-only vehicle sales, many car owners do much of their charging at home, either with a slow Level 1 charger that operates off a regular household 110-volt electrical circuit; or an enhanced Level 2 charger that runs on a 220-240 volt current (as do many electric stoves), which may need to be specifically installed for that purpose.

Among 2021 models, a Tesla S has a range of 379 miles, a Kia e-Niro of 282 miles, a Hyundai Kona of 287 and the Nissan Leaf of 239 miles, with several other models offering a range above or approaching 200 miles.

Wagner focused on three opportunities: adding EV chargers to the parking area near Depot Park; upgrading the pre-existing EV chargers in the East Napa Street parking lot – one of which is no longer functioning, and the other nearing the end of its viable lifespan (10 years); and installing workplace chargers for city employees, probably at the “corporation yard” on Eighth Street East. This would fit in with another city goal, to create an all-electric city fleet to help reduce the city’s carbon footprint of greenhouse gas emissions.

Another tactic, Wagner said, is to pursue an arrangement with Tesla to piggy-back on the company’s plan for eight new “super-chargers” for its network, tentatively planned for the Sonoma Community Center. Tesla chargers are the fastest available but they work only with Tesla vehicles (although Tesla owners have an adapter that allows them to use non-Tesla chargers as well). The plan is for the city to pay installation costs for two Level 2 chargers at the Tesla station, with the electric vehicle and clean energy company paying for the electric infrastructure to support them.

Finally, Wagner proposed developing a city-funded grant program to encourage homeowners or builders to develop additional charging stations through matching grants or a rebate program.

Should the city council approve, such a program could become up and running in July. It would coincide with the CALeVIP rebate program, administered through Sonoma Clean Power, that offers rebates for EV charger installation, with a higher rebate at multi-family dwelling units. “Thus, it is possible that with both programs, there would be very little cost to the charger host for L2 chargers,” said Wagner.

Additional opportunities include working with California State Parks to promote installation of high-speed L2 chargers at the Casa Grande and Vallejo Home parking lots.

The next step is for Wagner to take the commission’s recommendations back to the city council this spring so they can become part of the city’s budget planning for fiscal 2021-2022.

Email Christian at christian.kallen@sonomanews.com.

Automotive technicians in Prince George are now going to be able to upgrade their skills to work on electric vehicles (EVs) through the EV Maintenance Training program offered at the College of New Caledonia (CNC).

As more EVs get on the road in B.C., demand for EV maintenance jobs will continue to increase, the province says.

“We’re supporting the growing popularity of EVs by helping auto technicians develop the skills they need to work on EVs in service centres across B.C.,” said Bruce Ralston, Minister of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation, in a news release this morning (March 29), with pilot training set to begin in fall 2021.

“The expansion of the EV Maintenance Training program will help grow our EV sector and make it even easier for British Columbians to make the switch to an EV, putting us on the road to a cleaner, better future.”

With $440,000 through the Province’s CleanBC Go Electric program and in partnership with Trades Training BC, the program is earmarked for CNC’s Prince George campus, Okanagan College’s Kelowna campus and Camosun College’s Interurban campus in Victoria.

“The automotive industry is rapidly changing as electric vehicles become more commonplace on roads,” said Frank Rossi, CNC dean of trades and technologies.

“We’re thankful for this investment prioritizing student knowledge towards the maintenance of electric vehicles, which will further their success in the new industry that awaits them. CNC is also thankful to local employers and industry partners it is partnering with to help deliver this vital training.”

The British Columbia Institute of Technology’s (BCIT) Burnaby campus initially launched the program in 2019 to provide Red Seal automotive technicians with the skills they need to work on EVs.

The province says this program expansion will prepare British Columbians for good-paying jobs of the future and post-pandemic economic recovery.

“This program will help more people in the north build the skills we need for the economy we need – a greener, cleaner economy for rural B.C.,” said Stikine MLA Nathan Cullen.

“It’s a great opportunity for our communities to pitch in and support B.C.’s goals for a cleaner future.”

Red Seal automotive technicians wanting to upgrade their skills in EV maintenance should check each college’s website for course details.

Moveable explores the future of transportation, infrastructure, energy, and cities.

Last week, the electric vehicle (EV) startup Rivian, backed by Amazon and Ford among other major investors, announced it will build a network of 3,500 fast chargers at 600 sites by the end of 2023. Only Rivian owners will be able to use them.

This is a rational, if expensive, response to a major problem facing electric vehicles. There are currently two charging networks: Tesla’s and everyone else’s. Tesla’s charging experience is great, one of the major perks of owning their vehicles. Just plug your Tesla into a Supercharger and it starts charging. They are fast and reliable. You’re on your way in no time.

Everyone else’s network is, quite frankly, bad, in almost every sense of the user experience. Just a few years ago, anyone doing a road trip in a non-Tesla EV would need “to carry a wallet full of RFID cards” that allow them to charge their car at various charging stations owned by different companies, recalls Chris Nelder of the Rocky Mountain Institute who has studied EV charging infrastructure for years. Such a road-tripper would also have needed to be a member of a handful of different charging networks, and have signed up for them before beginning the trip because you couldn’t sign up on the spot. Think of it kind of like going on a round-the-world trip and having a global SIM card versus needing to buy a regional one in each place you visit. And this was to say nothing of the different plug types, standards, charging speeds, and the constant frustration of encountering chargers that don’t charge at the advertised speed or simply don’t work at all.

For almost a century, we have taken for granted that any car can stop at any gas station and fill up in a few minutes. But we are getting very close to a world where this simply will not happen for electric cars. Instead, we are resigning ourselves to a complicated patchwork of charging networks, each with its own proprietary software, and maybe even a growing pile of dongles for your car. And this is a headache that could be avoided if an independent authority steps in to encourage an even playing field as is happening in Europe.

Major automakers say they’re getting serious about competing with Tesla. The smart ones realize that means more than just making competitive vehicles. It also means offering a competitive charging experience, something they can’t do with the current patchwork of third-party chargers over which there are few standards and little control over the actual customer experience. Something needs to change.

Rivian’s announcement serves as yet another warning that, rather than EV charging becoming simpler, it is about to get even more complicated. It is quite possible that, in the not-too-distant future, nearly all electric cars will be sold with the same charging ports but will have a dedicated network of preferred chargers for that company’s cars. Instead of trying to fix the interoperability problem, some EV-makers are doubling down, creating the equivalent of gated charging communities for their vehicles. Tesla and Rivian may be the first of many to block other EVs from using their chargers entirely so as to preserve a premium user experience for their own customers.  

“I think the proprietary network makes sense from an individual company perspective— providing exclusive amenity access to their customers is part of the value proposition,” said Carnegie Mellon University civil and environmental engineering professor Costa Samaras. “But I don’t think it’s great from a societal perspective or an EV-adoption perspective, this is like having separate unleaded 87 octane gasoline pumps for Fords and Hondas.”

The first few decades of the automobile had a similar problem. A niche industry mostly populated by hobbyists, automobiles used all kinds of different fuels including benzol, kerosene, gasoline, and in some cases grain alcohols. Only once cars became popular did the industry start to set standards for what gasoline actually was. The federal government’s Bureau of Mines contributed to this effort by setting standards for any fuel it procured, nudging the industry towards standardization. Still, in the first half of the 20th century, the automobile and petroleum industry set their own standards for gasoline, and all the gas put into U.S. cars through the beginning of the 1970s was totally unregulated. Only once pollution became linked to vehicle emissions did the federal government step in and set enforceable standards for gasoline quality, which it still does today. 

Which is to say, the problems facing EVs are not new. If you don’t know how EV charging in the U.S. works, here is a quick crash course.

Currently, there are three main plugs in use. The most prominent is the Combined Charging System (CCS) used by most automakers and generally regarded as the port the industry will eventually converge upon, in much the same way all Android phones eventually settled on micro-USB (and then USB-C) charging. The second is the Tesla connector, used by Teslas, which is basically the Apple of electric cars, complete with its own proprietary port. And the third is called CHAdeMO; I will not even bother to explain the provenance of that name because it is only used by a few Japanese automakers and they are phasing it out in favor of CCS.

As for speed, there are, broadly speaking, two categories of charging speed for public chargers: Level 2 and Level 3 (otherwise known as Direct Current Fast Charging, or DCFC). Level 2 charging is what you get from an at-home charger, which will charge a car in about five to seven hours depending on the battery size. These Level 2 chargers use a plug called the J1772 standard, which is part of the CCS standard (it is called the “Combined Charging System because it combines J1772 with a DC fast charging addendum). Cars with the CHAdeMO fast-charging standard have an additional port for J1772 plugs. By now, all level 2 charging is basically universal, as Tesla plugs have adapters to use the J1772 if needed. 

Yes, electric cars also have dongles. Many of them are for Teslas, which need adapters to use J1772s (free with car, or an extra $95 if you need another) and CHAdeMO ($400) ports. For technical reasons, CHAdeMO to CCS adapters are not really feasible at a reasonable size or price point, although this company sells one that looks like a small generator for $4,000.

Europe’s landscape is slightly simpler. Over there, Tesla’s most popular vehicle, the Model 3, is sold with a CCS plug and new Superchargers have the CCS standard as well. (Other Tesla models come with Tesla-to-CCS adapters, but those same adapters are not available in the U.S.) It’s as if iPhones were sold in Europe with USB-C ports. Something, by the way, the European Commission is also trying to make happen. 

All that being said, Tesla still only lets Teslas charge at Superchargers in Europe even though they use the same plugs as everyone else; other EVs are blocked from using their chargers at the software level. Rivian has not said what standard it will use or how it will enforce Rivian-only chargers and declined to clarify that with Motherboard, but most in the industry expect Rivian to do what Tesla is doing in Europe and use the CCS standard but block other EVs from using their chargers through the software. 

Even though Level 2 charging has become more or less standardized, dongles notwithstanding, fast charging in the U.S. is still a headache. This is a big deal because fast charging is what most people imagine when they think of public chargers. Nobody’s about to sit at a Level 2 charger for five hours to make it to the next stop. Fast charging, in theory, can get a car up to 80 percent charge in around half an hour. The more fast chargers installed, the thinking goes, the more likely people will feel comfortable buying an EV, because they allow for longer road trips and offer an experience more similar to going to a traditional gas station.

Evangelists often make the comparison, as Rivian did in its blog post announcing its network, of charging an EV to plugging in your phone every night. It is not entirely off base, for reasons that are both good and bad. Many EV owners do charge their cars mostly at home, rarely relying on public chargers. And, like phones, EVs are, after an early era of lots of proprietary plugs, practically down to two plug types, one used by dozens of manufacturers and the other by one stubborn yet major outlier. 

Paradoxically, it is simultaneously true that EVs can accommodate the vast majority of U.S. daily car trips and that people probably won’t buy EVs in huge numbers until they’re confident a reliable, accessible public fast-charging network exists. As a result, there is widespread consensus the public charging network needs to get bigger and better. The Biden administration said it wants to build 500,000 EV chargers over the next decade, up from the approximately 100,000 available today. But most of those existing chargers are not fast chargers and therefore do little to assuage range anxiety. To put these numbers in perspective, according to Atlas EV Hub, there are 9,707 Tesla Supercharger ports in the U.S. and 7,947 non-Tesla fast chargers, meaning 55 percent of all fast chargers in the U.S. are for Teslas only. 

This is why referring to “the” EV charging network, as if there is only one, is wrong. Despite much improvement over the last five years, the EV charging landscape is still fractured and confusing. And, federal subsidies or not, nearly all industry observers anticipate a boom in charger installations over the next several years. 

The big question facing the EV industry, which will have huge ramifications for EV users in the next decade and beyond, is whether the end result will be an open access charging landscape or a series of walled gardens. Will you be able to pull into any EV charging station and “fill up” in a reasonable amount of time for a reasonable price? Or will more chargers than not be closed off unless you’re driving a specific car brand?

The best example of this today is, of course, Tesla Superchargers. As far as charging is concerned, Teslas have a huge advantage, because the fast charging network available to Tesla owners is roughly double the size of every other EV’s. This is because Teslas can use most EV chargers if they have the right adapter, but owners of, say, the Chevy Bolt can’t use Tesla’s Superchargers under any circumstances (Tesla also has a network of Level 2 “destination chargers”; you can, in theory, charge non-Teslas at those if you really want to; I said the EV charging landscape was fractured and confusing and I meant it). This limits the network effect of the U.S. charging landscape. Unless, of course, you have a Tesla.

None of this is to rag on Superchargers, which Tesla was building back when automakers were still dismissing EVs as gimmicks. Quite the opposite; the Supercharger network is one of the least appreciated infrastructure innovations of the 21st Century. A major reason for why Teslas account for about three out of every four EVs sold in the U.S. right now is because it promises an easy, seamless, fast charging experience across most of the country. 

“Tesla kind of got into that situation, because they were building cars that needed faster chargers than anybody else was building,” said Nelder. “And, you know, if they wanted those faster chargers to exist, they just basically had to go build them themselves. They did it out of necessity, not because they necessarily wanted to run a proprietary network.”

To be sure, third-party charging networks like Electrify America and EVGo are making progress. For example, the two companies, which are the largest third-party fast chargers in the country, have an interoperability agreement that allows members of one network to use the other without creating an additional account or charged extra fees. An emerging standard called Plug and Charge gets membership and payment information directly from the car itself when plugged into the charger, dispensing of the need for a separate card and membership agreement. Should this become widespread, it would get other EVs a lot closer to the Tesla experience. Currently, this standard is only available for the Ford Mach E and Porsche Taycan in the U.S. with Electrify America chargers, but more are sure to follow.

Still, they have a long way to go to offer the experience Superchargers do, not only with the “plug and play” experience that doesn’t require lengthy registration or authentication menus, but also with consistency. Talk to any non-Tesla EV owner and they will tell you even so-called “fast chargers” rarely deliver the promised speeds if they work at all. Reilly Brennan, a partner at Trucks Venture Capital that is involved in the electric vehicle and charging industry, thinks non-Tesla EV manufacturers are going to have to come to terms with something Tesla knew a decade ago: the charging experience is part of EV ownership. If it sucks to charge that brand’s car, people are not going to buy it or they will tell all their family and friends not to buy it 

“The experiences on the EV on the charging side are actually so poor right now that they’re going to drive people back to dedicated network vehicles,” Brennan said. One obvious path, he added, is for automakers to turn dealerships into charging hubs. 

Looking across the Atlantic Ocean, the EU government is reviewing standards and compatibility requirements in the Alternative Fuel Infrastructure Directive, said Philippe Vangeel of The European Association for Electromobility, which could force even “private” chargers to reserve some plugs for public use or prevent discriminatory pricing. 

The question facing policymakers in the U.S., especially as they consider a massive infrastructure bill that potentially has money for EV chargers, is whether there should be any rules for chargers that are built with public money. 

Currently, there are various tax incentives for installing EV chargers, even if on private property. For his part, Nelder thinks if an EV charger is paid for in part with tax dollars, then the public has a right to be able to use it. But, “there’s nobody that can tell you that you can’t build a charging station with your own money, and do whatever the hell you want to with it. Right?” he added. “This is America.”

The question of electric being cleaner than gasoline is irrelevant if the goal is to save the world!

By Marc J. Rauch
Exec. Vice President/Co-Publisher
THE AUTO CHANNEL

Marc Rauch

Newfie jokes are like Polish jokes, or jokes about hillbillies, or like the jokes that Rush Limbaugh used to tell about people who live in Rio Linda, California. They’re jokes about people
who are humorously depicted to be of limited intellect. A Newfie is a person from Newfoundland, the eastern most province of Canada.

One Newfie jokes goes like this:

Two Newfies (Clyde and Zeke) meet on a street one day and Zeke is carrying a bag. Clyde asks “What’s in the bag?” Zeke says, “If you can guess
what’s in the bag, You can have it. I’ll give you a hint, it starts with the letter N.”

Clyde ponders this for a moment, and then says “It’s a Napple.”

Zeke shakes his head and says, “No, it’s a Norange!”

This is a two punchline joke. When told on stage by a skilled comedian (as I originally heard it nearly 50 years ago), the audience laughs at the first punchline “Napple.” And the joke
could be over at that point. But, the comedian went on to the second punchline about the mysterious object being a “Norange,” and there was an even bigger laugh.

I selected this joke to start my reply to a Wall Street Journal editorial that compares electric powered vehicles against gasoline powered vehicles for two reasons. The first is because I wanted
to make the point that the comparison is an Apples vs. Oranges comparison; and the second reason is because the researchers who were relied upon for the editorial’s findings are from Canada.

The WSJ article was written by Russell Gold, with visual and data help from Jessica Kuronen and Elbert Wang. The editorial is titled
“Are Electric Cars Really Better For The Environment?” It was published a few days ago, on March 22nd.

The “apples and oranges” comparison in the WSJ story is, obviously, electric versus gasoline. The comparison is irrelevant because an electric motor is very different than a gasoline
internal combustion engine. An electric motor does not release or discharge any type of smoke (gas) or liquid during its normal operating process. A gasoline powered ICE can not operate without
emitting some type of smoke. So the comparison is like asking if dirt is cleaner than no-dirt.

Of course, the overall issue is far greater than just the issue of emissions released into the atmosphere by an operating motor/engine. The question addressed by Mr. Gold and associates encompasses other
aspects such as the manufacturing of the electric motors and vehicles, the manufacturing of the gasoline engines and vehicles, and the fuels used to produce the electricity that powers the electric
motors.

The bottom line to the story is that in the long run electric powered vehicles are cleaner than gasoline powered vehicles. They point out that initially gasoline powered vehicles are cleaner, and
that up to about 20,000 miles (a little less than 2 years of average driving) they are an even match. As the vehicles get used more and more, the electric vehicles come out as being much cleaner.
This is really no surprise, and so one wonders why the authors and the Wall Street Journal would even bother with this story.

This question is answered by the backdrop, if you will, of the storyline. The backdrop is the 2015 Paris Agreement to keep global temperatures from rising. The WSJ editorial doesn’t consider
the more ‘mundane’ aspects of respiratory or brain-impairment problems caused by gasoline and its burning, nor does the editorial consider the human issues related to the use of slave-like
and child labor to mine some of the minerals that are required to produce the batteries use by electric vehicles. This is an intriguing omission considering that the horrendous notion of health damage
or using slave labor and child labor would be sufficient to derail most other production processes. It’s almost as if it’s okay to subject adults and children to bad health or slave-like
working conditions if it helps the Chinese make lithium batteries. After all, there are slave camps in China, and they eat dogs, so who cares what Communist China does to people in Africa!

But hey, the point of my story, this article, isn’t to focus on the societal differences in eating hot dogs (frankfurters) or real dogs. The point of my story is the argument of electric
powered vehicles versus gasoline powered vehicles. So with this in mind, let me get to it.

The authors and the Canadian researchers don’t identify what type of gasoline they used in their study. Was it E0 gasoline or an ethanol-gasoline blend? I ask this because there is a pretty
good difference, and because Canada has not had the same kind of biofuel mandates as America. Therefore, it’s quite possible that they didn’t use statistics related to any kind of
ethanol-gasoline blend.

If it was a blend, what was the blend? Was it the E5 blend that was used in Canada, or the more recently accepted E10. It’s highly unlikely that they would have made their measurements against
E15, which hasn’t even really been put to use in America. And, if the authors and researchers are projecting into the future of electric vehicle acceptance and use (as they did), why didn’t
they do the same to project what would be the comparative difference between electric vehicles and vehicles powered by a future of E85 or E90 or E95 (as used in Brazil)?

Assuming that the University of Toronto researchers used E0 gasoline (or even E10), E85 is much, much cleaner; ostensibly eight times cleaner. If the Federal government, and state governments like
California, decreed the use of at least E85 fuel to be used in all ICE vehicles (as they are basically doing regarding new electric powered vehicles), then internal combustion engine vehicles
wouldn’t be cleaner than electric vehicles just up to 20,000 miles, they might be cleaner – or at least equally clean – for 8 times more miles of usage. That’s an entirely different story.
So why wasn’t that story told by WSJ? Why wasn’t it hinted at?

If an internal combustion engine vehicle powered by E85, or a higher ethanol fuel, is as clean or cleaner than an electric vehicle for eight times longer than E0 or E10, then it means that the
average “clean” E85 vehicle could be on the road for 8 times more than the 20,000 miles; in other words, something close to 15 years.

What makes knowing this so important – so crucially important if following the Paris Agreement means anything – is that a rather simple adjustment of mandating the use of higher ethanol fuels could
be made by tonight….that is, if the future of planet Earth is so important. No need to wait until 2025, or 2035, or 2050 to stop the scourge of increasing global temperatures, and reduce further
respiratory and brain development damage in humans, we could do it now.

EPILOGUE: Two guys meet again on the street, Clyde and Zeke. This time Clyde is carrying a bag labeled “From Paris.”

Zeke says, “If you give me a hint, I bet I can guess what you’re carrying.”

Clyde says, Okay, it starts with the letter B.”

Zeke excitedly responds, ” Je sais, c’est Brioche!”

“Non” says Clyde, “c’est des conneries!”
(This erudite Clyde and Zeke aren’t from Newfoundland or Rio Linda, they’re from Brooklyn. Check Google translator
to translate the French to English.)

Would you like to learn more about ethanol? How about a 600-page book that you can read online for FREE?
CLICK HERE to read it.

By Lee Kah Whye |
Updated: Mar 29, 2021 10:23 IST

Singapore, March 29 (ANI): The year is 2023. A Singapore resident decides to buy a car. Not just any car but the latest electric vehicle (EV) produced by the new gleaming high-tech Hyundai factory in Jurong, an industrial town in Western Singapore. She whips up her smartphone and personalises her new car.
She surmises that cream colour seats, a shocking pink exterior coat plus the performance model which can go from 0 to 100 km/h in 3 seconds would be nice and proceeds to make payment using her bitcoin account. The next day, she heads out to Jurong to watch the factory put the final touches on her brand-new ride and proudly drives her car to show off to her friends at Marina Bay Sands.
This may sound a little like fantasy, but it could materialise in the near future.
Last week, it was reported by Reuters that the Indian government is planning to ramp up incentives to spur electric car manufacturing investments in the country with the aim of catching up with leading EV producing nations.
Interestingly, it is facing an unlikely competitor in Singapore which has not made an automobile since 1980. Singapore announced last October that Hyundai will be investing USD300 million in a futuristic and highly automated electric car factory in Singapore. It is by no means the first company the Singapore Economic Development Board (EDB) has courted to make cars on the island state.
Back in September 2017, Dyson, the British company famous for its bladeless fans and hairdryers announced that it was building a USD3.2 billion plant to make electric cars in Singapore. However, they shelved the plan in October 2019 after deciding that the project would not be “commercially viable”.
Singapore exited automobile manufacturing over 40 years ago because Singapore was getting too expensive for the mass manufacturing of cars. However, because electric cars have far fewer moving parts and components compared with its internal combustion engine cousins, and uses the latest electronics technology where Singapore has an edge, it sees a future in making such cars.
The models to be made are reported to be the Ioniq 5, a mid-sized electric crossover based on the Hyundai Concept 45 and yet-to-be launchedIoniq 3 electric compact crossover.
In addition to manufacturing, the plant will be a centre for research and development into autonomous vehicles, new forms of ride-sharing and passenger drones using solar energy and hydrogen fuel.
Hyundai said that the facility will employ various advanced manufacturing and logistical systems including artificial intelligence, the Internet of Things, and robotics.
The factory will use breakthrough technology. Customers will be able to purchase and customise their vehicles on their phones and once an order is made, production will begin. Customers can watch their cars assembled at the centre and receive their cars relatively quickly. As a comparison, Tesla which just started selling its cars directly in Singapore has a delivery lead time of 3-4 months.
Sitting on a 44,000 square metre plot, the high-tech factory is expected to start production in late 2022 and produce up to 30,000 cars every year. As only about 5,000 to 6,000 cars are anticipated to be sold locally, the majority of the cars produced at this plant isexpected tobe exported to neighbouring countries.
At such a volume, Singapore will in no way challenge the major car manufactures in Asia like China which made about 20 million cars in 2020 according to figures from the German market and consumer data firm, Statista. Japan which produced 7 million cars last year was the second largest auto maker in Asia, followed by South Korea (3.2 million), India (2.9 million), Indonesia (551,000), Thailand (537,000) and Malaysia (457,000).
China is by far the most advanced country in Asia with regards to the production of electric cars. Globally, with the exception of Tesla, many industry observers say that it is also ahead of the US. That they are ahead of the rest of the world today is due to subsidies and supportive government policies which started more than 10 years ago. This has resulted in a host of EV start-ups. Many have failed but those that have succeeded are among the top EV car manufacturers in the world today.
Statista predicts that by 2022, China will be producing almost 10.2 million EVs (cars) a year which is way ahead of its competitors in Asia. Japan is expected to produce 1.7 million and South Korea 881,000.
BYD which billionaire investor Warren Buffet has a stake in is the leading name among Chinese EV carmakers. It is also among the top electric battery makers in the world. Together with Contemporary Amperex Technology (CATL), they account for about a third of the global market, according to UBS. Washington DC-based advocacy group SAFE research reveals that out of 142 lithium-ion battery mega factories under construction globally, 107 are set for China, only nine will be in the US.
Other leading Chinese electric automobile brands include Li Auto, Nio and Xpeng. According to the China Passenger Car Association, US auto giant General Motors’ joint venture with Wuling Motors and SAIC Motor produced the second bestselling EV car in China, the Hongguang Mini in 2020. It achieved this in just six months and is poised to overtake the best-selling Tesla Model 3 which shipped 137,000 units last year.
Tesla’s Gigafactory in Shanghai can currently produce around 250,000 cars and there are rumours that it is planning to ramp that up to 550,000 by the end of 2021. Tesla cars made in the Shanghai plant are exported to the region as well as Europe.
Japan, the third-largest automaking country in the world, on the other hand, has taken a more conservative approach and is focusing on petrol-electric hybrid cars. They are betting that EV cars which has global market share of just 3 per cent at the moment, will not be attractive to most consumers for a few years because of higher costs, range constraints and limited charging points. Last year, Japanese cars contributed to less than 5 per cent of EVs sold worldwide and its share is mostly attributable to Nissan’s Leaf which accounted for 65 per cent of all Japanese electric cars sold.
India, the second-most populous country in the world is starting to play catch-up.
Last week, Reuters reported, quoting industry sources, that India is offering fresh incentives to EV car manufacturers as part of a broad automobile sector scheme aimed at attracting some USD14 billion of investment over 5 years.
The plan which takes a more focused approach than other earlier piecemeal efforts targets larger firms that have scale, competitive and management capabilities that can help them succeed. USD8 billion of incentives will be offered to carmakers and suppliers to drive investments in the sector which is expected to create 5.8 million new jobs and yield more than USD4 billion in tax revenues over five years.
The incentives are meant to help companies overcome the challenges of operating in an environment of steep interest rates, high power tariffs, poor infrastructure and high logistics costs.
The report added that among the international automobile companies who have plans to invest in EV production in India are Tesla, Ford, and Volkswagen, and local firms Tata Motors and Mahindra & Mahindra. (ANI)

Uber passengers in central London can now request a driver with an all-electric vehicle as part of the company’s mission to become a “fully zero-emission platform” by 2040.

Uber Green, available from Monday on journeys that start in London’s Zone 1, gives riders the option to choose a fully electric vehicle instead of a hybrid, diesel or petrol car, with plans for a wider rollout in the capital at a later date.

“With cities beginning to open up once again, we have a once in a lifetime opportunity to drive a green recovery by ensuring that every car on the Uber app in London is fully electric,” said Jamie Heywood, Uber’s regional general manager for northern and eastern Europe.

Uber will offer drivers of fully electric vehicles a reduced service fee of 15 per cent as an incentive. Currently, only 1,600 Uber drivers in London have electric vehicles out of a fleet of about 45,000.

The launch of the new feature follows a series of legal battles in the city including Uber’s successful challenge to retain its operating licence and, most recently, a landmark Supreme Court ruling that led the ride-hailing platform to reclassify its UK drivers as workers.

London, one of Uber’s biggest markets, is its first target for emission-free journeys by 2025.

Twice weekly newsletter

Energy is the world’s indispensable business and Energy Source is its newsletter. Every Tuesday and Thursday, direct to your inbox, Energy Source brings you essential news, forward-thinking analysis and insider intelligence. Sign up here.

In January 2019, Uber added an additional fee of 15p for every mile travelled in the city as part of its Clean Air Plan, which it says has raised £125m to help UK drivers cover the cost of vehicles.

The company signed a deal the following year with Nissan to provide 2,000 electric Leafs to Uber drivers at below the market rate to rent or purchase.

Uber last year pledged to go fully electric by 2040, with fleets in Europe and North America achieving this goal by 2030.

“The ultimate success of our business will rest on our ability to transition our platform to clean energy in partnership with drivers, industry innovators, and governments,” chief executive Dara Khosrowshahi said at the time.

Uber Green will be rolled out to 60 big European cities and across the US by the end of 2021.

Uber is not the only ride-hailing service that has made a commitment to reducing its environmental impact. Rival service Lyft, which operates in the US and Canada, has also said it will move to a fully electric fleet by 2030.

The first 2022 GMC Hummer EV pickup has yet to be built, but it is already sold for a whopping $2.5 million.

The buyer — a woman whose name is not public, according to a General Motors spokeswoman —will receive the vehicle with VIN 001 when it rolls off the assembly line at Factory ZERO in Detroit and Hamtramck this fall.

Hummer VIN 001 was sold Saturday evening at the 2021 Barrett-Jackson auction in Scottsdale, Arizona, with the proceeds going to the Tunnel to Towers Foundation, a nonprofit that honors firefighter Stephen Siller, who died on Sept. 11, 2001.

The group helps injured military and first responders and the families of those who died in the line of duty.

“We are thrilled with the auction results and what the proceeds will mean for the Tunnel to Towers Foundation,” said Duncan Aldred, vice president of Buick and GMC. “We also recognize the support of Barrett-Jackson for this special occasion, which made it a 100-percent charitable endeavor.”

Also auctioned Saturday was the 2021 Ford Bronco 2-Door VIN 001 for $1.075 million. That money will go to the National Forest Foundation and Outward Bound, Barrett-Jackson said in a news release.

Electric-vehicle stocks have taken a hit the past few weeks amid a rotation away from highly valued tech and growth names, but that doesn’t mean it’s the end of the road for the EV boom, according to Mark Haefele, chief investment officer of UBS Global Wealth Management.

Long-term technological and environmental shifts suggest the boom should continue, while acknowledging that volatility in the share prices of individual companies argues for investors to diversify their exposure. Still, Haefele’s team said investors should consider the underlying data.

Elon Musk’s Tesla has led an incredible boom for electric vehicles over the past few years, and in 2020 alone, sales of electric cars rose 43% while overall car sales slumped 20%, according to data published on Tuesday by EV-volumes.com. The market has grown so much that these days, Tesla is just one of dozens of competitors in the rapidly-expanding industry.

In fact, Tesla’s share of the US EV market fell to 69% in February, down from 81% in the prior year, a Morgan Stanley report found.

It’s getting more crowded, too, as every major car company in the US has said they will be entering the EV market.

General Motors recently pledged to invest $27 billion to launch 30 EV models by 2025, and it has showed off new cars like an electric Hummer, which is set to be released in 2022. Ford released the Mustang Mach-E, which has taken market share from Tesla, and VW recently unveiled its plans to build six “gigafactories” in Europe by 2030 to aid with its EV business.

In China, EV players like SAIC Motor Corporation are targeting the lower-end market with cars starting at just $4,465. The company sold over 25,000 Hong Guang Minis in January alone.

Public transit is also getting a revamp from EV companies. Proterra, a company that makes electric public and school buses, inked a deal to go public via billionaire investor Chamath Palihapitiya’s SPAC Arc Light Clean Transition Corp. in January.

Many analysts argue the EV boom is set to continue. Wedbush’s Dan Ives said in a recent note to clients that he believes the “EV party and transformation is just beginning as this industry is on the cusp of a $5 trillion market opportunity over the next decade.”

Haefele and his team agree with Ives, detailed below are three reasons why they see a long way to run for the EV boom.

1. “Electric vehicles continue to rapidly gain market share. Electric vehicle sales have been rapidly gaining market share. The diverging paths of automakers have been confirmed during the pandemic. While the overall auto market contracted by 15% in 2020, global electric vehicle sales rose by 43%, reaching a 4.2% market share. This trend looks set to continue and will benefit pure EV makers, as well as traditional automakers that are adapting fastest to the growing consumer preference for electric vehicles,” Haefele and co. wrote.
2. “Electrification of vehicles is still ‘The Next Big Thing’ in the automotive industry. Tighter emission regulations mean there is no alternative to the switchover from combustion to electric engines – be they battery electric vehicles (BEV), plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEV), or fuel cell vehicles (FCV). This move toward electric has also been embraced by traditional automakers such as Volkswagen, which has pledged investment of over EUR 50bn in its EV strategy as it aims to catch up with Tesla,” Haefele and co. wrote.
3. “The transformation underway in the auto sector goes beyond drive trains. We see parallel technological advances in the sector, along with a shift in consumer preferences away from ownership. On technology, progress is being made in areas such as autonomous driving, helped by the rollout of 5G networks. On the issue of ownership, increasing mobile connectivity and changing preferences among younger age groups are leading to the rise of car-sharing models. In the future, using a car will not automatically mean owning one. Overall, we foresee potential sales of some USD 400bn connected to our Smart Mobility theme by 2025, of which electrification represents more than half, an eight- to nine-fold increase on today’s figure,” Haefele and co. wrote.