Skip to content

Hyping Electric Vehicle Sales

March 8, 2013

The audacity of EV and PHEV proponents is staggering. In the face of sluggish sales for EVs and PHEVs, there is an attempt to distort sales figures by including Hybrid Electric Vehicles.

Proponents announced that 487,480 electric vehicles were sold in 2012, but this includes hybrids.

Hybrids are not EVs or PHEVs. Understanding the objective behind each type of vehicle can help distinguish hype from facts.

Hybrids use electric technology to improve vehicle efficiency, as measured by miles per gallon, while still relying on the internal combustion engine (ICE) as the primary, almost sole, source of power for the vehicle. The media adopted the term Hybrid Electric Vehicle (HEV) for this type of vehicle, which has created considerable confusion. The objective of Hybrids is to improve efficiency, not eliminate or reduce the use of ICEs. Superchargers, and other improvements to the ICE, also improve efficiency.

Electric Vehicles (EVs) rely entirely on batteries for automotive power, and eliminate the ICE: The objective of EVs is to eliminate the internal combustion engine.

A Plug-in electric vehicle (PHEV) relies on the battery to power the vehicle for a limited number of miles, and then uses the ICE as the sole source of power when the battery’s charge is depleted. Typically, a PHEV can travel 35 miles using the battery, without using the ICE. Theoretically, an owner of a PHEV, living within 35 miles of work, could travel to work without using the ICE, assuming there is a means for charging the battery at work. The objective of PHEVs is to reduce the use of the internal combustion engine.

EVs have a range of only around 100 miles before the battery is depleted. A PHEV has a range of over 300 miles, similar to vehicles powered solely by ICEs.1

There is also an attempt to ballyhoo the number of new EV and PHEV models being introduced in 2013 and 2014, on the assumption that more models will increase sales.

Table 1 shows sales of EVs and PHEVs by month in 2012.

Table 1




January 603 824
February 1,023 639
March 3,200 961
April 3,116 775
May 2,766 612
June 2,455 863
July 2,537 479
August 3,878 837
September 4,503 1,306
October 4,994 2,040
November 4,544 2,211
December 4,965 2,704
Total 2012 38,584 14,251
January 2013 2,354 2,022

It may or may not be important, but sales fell in January from the previous three months.

It’s interesting to note that BYD, the Chinese manufacturer in which Warren Buffett invested, has seen sluggish sales, 1,700 EVs in 2012, and is shifting its strategy to providing buses and taxis powered by batteries. China lacks an abundant supply of natural gas, which would otherwise be an alternative to batteries.

It’s also interesting that when a negative news article is written, such as the one in the New York Times about the Tesla, the manufacturer cries foul and tries to discredit the article.

The reality is that the high cost of batteries makes EVs and PHEVs unaffordable for the average person. Buyers are primarily environmental enthusiasts and elites who revel in having something unique.

It appears as though the attempt to impose EVs and PHEVs on Americans by using tax payer dollars to subsidize the purchase of EVs and PHEVs, while also subsidizing battery and car manufacturers, is failing.

 Watching the sales numbers is a better way to evaluate the success or failure of EVs and PHEVs than listening to the hype.


  1. The Volt has been called an extended range vehicle since the internal combustion engines primary task is to recharge the battery using a generator, but can take over, if necessary, to power the car. When depleted, the battery must be recharged at a charging station or any 120-volt outlet. Other PHEVs rely on the battery to power the car for around 35 miles, after which the internal combustion engine takes over. The battery must then be recharged at a charging station or at a 120-volt outlet.

EVs are also referred to as BEVs.

*  *  *  *  *  *

If you find these articles on energy issues interesting and informative, you can have them delivered directly to your mailbox by going to the Email Subscription heading below the photo.

Please forward this message to those who might be interested in these articles on energy issues.

*  *  *  *  *  *

[To find earlier articles, click on the name of the preceding month below the calendar to display a list of articles published in that month. Continue clicking on the name of the preceding month to display articles published in prior months.]

© Power For USA, 2010 – 2013. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this blog’s author, Donn Dears, LLC, is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Power For USA with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

6 Comments leave one →
  1. Neil Jones permalink
    March 8, 2013 1:02 pm


    Very informative. Now I understand the differences. Thanks for clarifying.


  2. March 8, 2013 3:08 pm

    There were so many people I know who couldn’t describe the differences, it motivated me to address the topic. I felt, if people knew the differences they would better understand the media reports..

  3. Stan Jarosz permalink
    March 8, 2013 4:06 pm


    How about an article about The Jones Act and suggestions on loosening it up so that we can get our Gulf oil to the east coast refineries. It would be a big win for ship builders and east coast refiners in addition to east coast gas prices. We could break our east coast reliance on Brent crude.

    1 Give a three year break and let us use foreign built ships with American crews

    2. To get the break a shipping co would have to order an American made tanker immediately. Thats a lot of ship yard jobs

    3. The shipper could use the foreigh built ship with the American crew for the three years.

    4. Good for the consumer and our trade deficit. Sounds like a winner.

    Stan from the cruise….

  4. March 8, 2013 4:33 pm

    The Jones Act is a relic from earlier years. It’s idea was to protect US shipyards which can’t compete with foreign yards because of high labor costs. Meanwhile it has cost jobs as the number of US flag ships has fallen drastically.
    There is room for debate about the efficacy of the Jones Act, though I favor major amendments, possibly repeal. On a more limited basis, I agree wholeheartedly that a waiver should be given to allow shipping of oil from the Gulf coast to East coast refineries. Having to use oil based on Brent’s higher prices has caused East coast refineries to be non-competitive and to produce products at higher cost.
    Two or three East coast refineries are closing because of high costs. Whether access to Gulf oil would help is not certain, but waving the requirements of the Jones Act might help.
    Stan: Good to hear from you. I enjoyed the cruise around Cape Horn, but came back too soon with all the snow and cold weather we have had.

  5. August 3, 2013 1:59 am

    Way cool! Some very valid points! I appreciate you penning this write-up and also the rest of the website is really good.


  1. Weekly Climate and Energy News Roundup | Watts Up With That?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s